=0D=0A=0D=0A
Sorry replied to the wrong=0D=0A message.=    I was chiding a f= riend about his reading=0D=0Ahabits
=0D=0A=0D=0A=

=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A
Russell Shelley
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A

=0D=0A=0D=0A
-----Original Message-----=0D=0AFrom: Assembly for th= e Teaching of=0D=0AEnglish Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shelley, Russel= l
=0D=0ASent: Thursday,= March 10, 2005<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> 9:52 AM
=0D=0ATo: ATEG@= LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
=0D=0ASubject: Re: Question re=0D=0A"That" vs. "Who"<= /font>
=0D=0A=0D=0A

=0D=0A=0D=0A
You should read more.
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A
Russell Shelley
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A

=0D=0A=0D=0A
-----Original Message-----
=0D=0AFrom: Assembly for the Teaching of=0D=0AEnglish Gra= mmar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
=0D=0ASent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 = 9:50 AM<= span=0D=0Astyle=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
=0D=0ATo: [log in to unmask]
=0D=0A= Subject: Re: Question re=0D=0A= "That" vs. "Who"
=0D=0A=0D=0A=

=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A
Herb,
=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A

=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D= =0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A
I also am interested in taking up=0D=0Aagain this question of connecti= ves for adjective clauses. It seems to me=0D=0Athat there might be a = functional justification of sorts. In our=0D=0Adiscussion of the appo= sitive we pointed out that the noun clause was able to=0D=0Aidentify the no= un like belie= f,=0D=0Aidea, fact, claim, decision, etc. in much th= e same way=0D=0Aas an adjective (relative) clause often does. When we= say, "the man=0D=0Athat came," the emphasis seems to be this sam= e idea of=0D=0Aidentification. We answer which man we're talking abou= t. When we=0D=0Asay, "the man who came," the emphasis is no= t as much on=0D=0Aidentification per se as on identification through descri= ption. In this=0D=0Acase the man could well be already identified and= the adjective clause may be=0D=0Ainterpreted as possibly non-restrictive e= ven. At least the author can be=0D=0Anon-committal about it. Pe= rhaps these differences in meaning, if I am not=0D=0Aimagining things, is e= vidence for your claim that the connective is=0D=0Asubstantially different = as well.
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A<= div>=0D=0A=0D=0A

=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D= =0A
Bruce
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A

=0D=0A>>>= ; [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:1= 0:47 AM >>><= /font>
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A
Herb,=0D=0A I know we have gone back and forth on this one before= , and I'm=0D=0Astill not convinced, but I think it may be important to clar= ify that there=0D=0Aseems to be agreement that there is such a thing as a r= elative pronoun (who,=0D=0Awith its various forms, and which, when function= ing within these adjectival=0D=0Aclauses), but that is a pronoun in=0D=0Asome camps and a complementize= r in others when it functions within a relative=0D=0Aclause. We tend to agr= ee that it is a complementizer in noun clauses precisely=0D=0Abecause it cl= early has no role within the noun clause.
=0D=0A I'm wonde= ring whether you see any difference between a content=0D=0Aclause structure= and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures,=0D=0Abut di= ffering in context by function=3F) The argument for these as appositional=0D= =0Aseems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. Is the notion = of appositional noun=0D=0Aclause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding= of the role of that a= s pronoun, at least as you see it=3F=0D=0AShould we discard the category=3F=
=0D=0A
=0D=0ACraig
=0D=0A
=0D=0A
=0D=0A
=0D=0AStahlke, H= erbert F.W. wrote:
=0D=0A
=0D= =0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A

To expand on my cryptic response to Martha, "th= at" is the older of the two ways of starting a relative clause. "Who" doesn't appear in r= elative clauses until the 15th century.&nb= sp; "That" appears six centuries earlier. At the time, "that", or its ancesto= r, was not a pronoun. It also= is not a pronoun in modern English. It is simply a subordinating conjuncti= on. This addresses directly t= he question of whether or not "that" can refer to humans. It's a conjunction. Conjunctions don't refer to anything. Using "that" in something = like "The man that met me at the airport" is fine because "t= hat" is a subordinating conjunction and doesn't replace the subject or= stand for the subject or refer to "the man" because only pronoun= s refer and it's not a pronoun.= <= /font>= The rule that "that" can't refer to humans is a stylistic prefere= nce based on a faulty grammatical analysis. I don't claim to be the first to argue that relative "t= hat" isn't a pronoun. Ot= to Jespersen, probably the greatest grammarian ever in the history of Engli= sh, argued for it in great detail in the first half of the 20th century. I haven't presented the evidence for= the conjunction analysis, because I've done that before on this list, but = I'll be glad to if you'd like to see it. Herb StahlkeAnother Ball Stater<= /font>= = = <= /font>= Everyone: I always read your discussions and appreciate the fact that youknow much more about grammar than I ever will. Here is a q= uestion for youexperts. We all know that language is fluid and that what is heard is pic= ked up andpracticed by many. Recently I seem to be heari= ng "He is the one that went"or "Those that= want ice cream must come to get it!" I was always under theimpression that whenever we speak of or refer to people, we should= use"who"--"He is the one who went";= "Those who want ice cream...". Has this= change= d=3F Was it never true=3F Thanks f= or your input. Helene A. Hoover (Cassopolis Public Schools, formerlyIvy Tech and Ball State) <= pre=0D=0Astyle=3D'margin-left:1.0in'>   =0D=0A=0D=0A
From: Martha Kolln <[log in to unmask]>Reply-To: Assembly for the Teachi= ng of English GrammarTo join or leave this LISTSERV list,= please visit the list's web interface at:     http://listserv.muohio.e= du/archives/ateg.htmland select "Join or leave the l= ist"=0D=0A=0D=0A

=0D=0A=0D=0A
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/<= /span>
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A
=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A
-------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------
=0D=0AThis message= may contain confidential information, and is
=0D=0Aintended only for th= e use of the individual(s) to whom it
=0D=0Ais addressed.
=0D=0A-----= -------------------------------------------------------------------------=0D=0A
=0D=0ATo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the lis= t's web interface at:=0D=0A http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.ht= ml=0D=0Aand select "Join or leave the list"=0D=0A
=0D=0AVisit ATEG's web = site at http://ateg.org/=0D=0ATo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please v= isit the list's web interface at:=0D=0A http://listserv.muohio.edu/arch= ives/ateg.html=0D=0Aand select "Join or leave the list"=0D=0A
=0D=0AVisit= ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=00 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ----=_NextPart_ST_09_54_43_Thursday_March_10_2005_27796-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:59:02 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: appositive vs relative clause MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020706090907050305020007" --------------020706090907050305020007 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Beth, I like Richard's response a great deal and just want to add a few writing teacher observations. One is that made a decision that... or had a hope that... aren't exactly phrasal verbs in the usual sense of the word, but they are somewhat dummy verbs, somewhat redundant, easily brought down to decided or hoped in the interest of tightening prose. It's a bit similar in that respect to "proceeded to go shopping for clothes" instead of just "shopped for clothes." The direct object acts somewhat like an extension of the verb. (made a decision = decided, had a wish = wished, and so on.) That's not to say that this structure is always empty or redundant. We can make a motion that... or float a proposal that.. or entertain the notion that... and so on. In these cases, I think some important nuances of meaning are being added by way of verb plus abstract noun. Motions, proposals, and notions seem more than just extensions of making, floating, and entertaining. (Though in another statement, we can move, propose, and note.) Our most basic vision of a direct object is something materially changed by an action. In these cases, the entities are not material and they do not necessarily exist apart from the actions at the core of the sentence. (We don't think a thought in the same way we kick a cat.) To me, these are the kinds of grammar/editing/reading interactions that don't get talked about enough. One problem is that we rarely talk about sentences within meaningful context, which is where reading and writing take place. When we do so, it is generally focused on "error." Correctness is ultimately trivial in comparison to the nuances of meaning an interpretive grammar can reveal. Craig Beth Young wrote: >Craig, thanks. Your explanation really helps. > >Those abstract verbs can be so hard to talk about. I can't count the >number of times I find myself discussing with students various possible >senses of "is" . . . and even finding subjects for verbs can sound silly > ("what's happening in this sentence? . . . ok, now who or what is >'is-ing'?") And people laughed at Clinton. > >OK, so how about these sentences: > >1. She made the decision that she would give them chocolate. > >The "that" clause here is an appositive even though it cannot be used >by itself: > >* She made that she would give them chocolate. > >It is a restricted appositive, correct? > > >2. She was pleased that they gave her chocolate. > >(Can anyone tell I'm trying to diet???) This sentence transforms "That >they gave her chocolate pleased her" to the passive voice, with the >"that" clause is also being nominal. > >Having been caught off guard yesterday, I am now working through this >whole concept yet again, just to be sure. :) > >Beth > > > >Beth Rapp Young >http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~byoung > >University of Central Florida >>From Promise to Prominence: Celebrating 40 Years. > > > > >>>>[log in to unmask] 3/9/2005 1:30:51 PM >>> >>>> >>>> >Martha's description is both cogent and clear. As with much of our >recent discussion , this one centers around both structure and >function. > A noun clause, as Martha points out, has a different internal >structure >than a relative clause does. (Perhaps the best argument for seeing the >relative "pronoun" as a "pronoun" is its difference from the noun >clause >"that", but it's hard not to say that without anticipating >objections.) >Noun clauses and relative clauses can function in the same slot (as >postnominal modifiers). More often than not, the analysis isn't overly >important. > I have had good luck with examples drawn from mental process verbs >that often take noun clauses as direct objects. I believe that she is >my friend. My belief that she is my friend is deeply grounded. >Students can see that the noun clause in the second sentence has been >moved intact into this postnominal (appositional) role. > Lots of times, these noun clauses act to restrict down fairly >abstract verb derived nouns like belief, hope, conclusion, conjecture >and so on. (His hope that we will come... His conjecture that the >building will collapse... Her wish that we would stop quarreling...) >If >the noun they are modifying appositionally is already a category of >one, >then the appositional noun clause will be nonrestrictive. (Her >dearest >hope, that her children would graduate from college, finally came to >pass.) > These aren't the only ways that noun clause apposition is >generated >or shows up, but it seems to get the idea across fairly successfully >on >first presentation. Once the students recognize it as a noun clause, >it's easier to see what's happening when we shift it around. > Because much grammar is still fairly new to me, I can sympathize. >I >remember how hard it was for this distinction to come clear. > I hope that helps. > >Craig > >Martha Kolln wrote: > > > >>Beth, >> >>I would add to Bruce's description of the two "that"s: In the >>relative clause, "that" has a slot to fill in the clause >> >> >itself--that > > >>of subject (and this is always true of the relative pronouns and >>relative adverbs that introduce adjectival clauses: pronouns fill a >>nominal slot or, in the case of the possessive "whose," a determiner >>slot; relative adverbs function as an adverbial in the clause); in >>the nominal clause, "that" serves only as an introducer, a >>nominalizer, with no function in the clause itself. Students who >>have learned traditional diagramming can picture the nominalizer >>"that" hovering over the clause, like an outsider; they can picture >>the relative pronoun firmly settled on or attached to the clause's >>main line. >> >>I call the relative-clause "that" a relative pronoun (I've learned >>only recently that this term is debatable); I call the nominalizer >>"that" an expletive, as many traditional grammarians do. >> >>Martha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Beth, >>> >>> >>>I would like to mention how I approach this with my students. This >>>may help, though you seem to reach the same point another way. >>> >>> >>>One function of an adjective is to identify the reference of a >>> >>> >noun. > > >>>The noun also can serve to help identify the reference of another >>>noun. This is the appositive. By the same token the noun clause >>> >>> >and > > >>>the adjective clause can both have an identifying function. There >>>are a good number of particular nouns that need further >>>identification, and the noun clause is naturally used with them: >>>fact, claim, rumor, statement, decision, idea, etc. These all >>> >>> >denote > > >>>concepts which are potentially worded as sentences. In such cases >>> >>> >it > > >>>is possible to express (redundantly) both functions (identifying >>>adjective/statement) by repeating the connective "that." Hence, >>>"They espoused the belief that is that God exists" has two >>>connectives. The first "that" is the connective of an adjective >>>clause (relative, pointing to "belief") and the second is the >>>connective of the noun clause. If you can build this redundant >>>construction logically, then you have the appositive. >>> >>> >>>Bruce >>> >>> >>>>>>[log in to unmask] 3/9/2005 7:45:48 AM >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>Thanks, everyone. The "which" test does work on sentence 1, but >>> >>> >not > > >>>sentence 2. Maybe we idiomatically prefer "the fact that . . . " >>> >>> >or > > >>>maybe I should have agreed that sentence 2 was an appositive? I can >>> >>> >see > > >>>that it's definitely an appositive in the sentence "That fact, that >>> >>> >they > > >>>didn't like chocolate, surprised her"--but that's not the same >>>sentence. >>> >>>Ultimately, I guess it doesn't matter that much. These sentences >>> >>> >won't > > >>>appear on any test--the students wrote the sentences for a >>> >>> >different > > >>>activity. I can just agree that sometimes it's really hard to tell >>> >>> >what > > >>>a clause is doing, just like it's sometimes really hard to tell what >>> >>> >a > > >>>prepositional phrase is doing, and leave it at that. >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Beth >>> >>> >>> >>>>Here are a couple of example sentences with the suspected >>>> >>>> >appositives > > >>>>in brackets: >>>> >>>>1. The book, [that was titled 'Great Expectations',] was a >>>> >>>> >classic. > > >>>>2. The fact [that they didn't like chocolate] surprised her. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Beth Rapp Young >>>http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~byoung >>> >>> > > > >>>University of Central Florida >>>>From Promise to Prominence: Celebrating 40 Years. >>> >>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>This message may contain confidential information, and is >>>intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it >>>is addressed. >>> >>> >>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and >>>select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> >>>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> >>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and >> >> >select > > >>"Join or leave the list" >> >>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> > > >To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >and select "Join or leave the list" > >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >and select "Join or leave the list" > >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------020706090907050305020007 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Beth,
I like Richard's response a great deal and just want to add a few writing teacher observations. One is that made a decision that... or had a hope that... aren't exactly phrasal verbs in the usual sense of the word, but they are somewhat dummy verbs, somewhat redundant, easily brought down to decided or hoped in the interest of tightening prose. It's a bit similar in that respect to "proceeded to go shopping for clothes" instead of just "shopped for clothes." The direct object acts somewhat like an extension of the verb. (made a decision = decided, had a wish = wished, and so on.)
That's not to say that this structure is always empty or redundant. We can make a motion that... or float a proposal that.. or entertain the notion that... and so on. In these cases, I think some important nuances of meaning are being added by way of verb plus abstract noun. Motions, proposals, and notions seem more than just extensions of making, floating, and entertaining. (Though in another statement, we can move, propose, and note.)
Our most basic vision of a direct object is something materially changed by an action. In these cases, the entities are not material and they do not necessarily exist apart from the actions at the core of the sentence. (We don't think a thought in the same way we kick a cat.)
   To me, these are the kinds of grammar/editing/reading interactions that don't get talked about enough. One problem is that we rarely talk about sentences within meaningful context, which is where reading and writing take place. When we do so, it is generally focused on "error." Correctness is ultimately trivial in comparison to the nuances of meaning an interpretive grammar can reveal.

Craig

Beth Young wrote:

[log in to unmask]">
Craig, thanks. Your explanation really helps. Those abstract verbs can be so hard to talk about. I can't count the number of times I find myself discussing with students various possible senses of "is" . . . and even finding subjects for verbs can sound silly ("what's happening in this sentence? . . . ok, now who or what is 'is-ing'?") And people laughed at Clinton. OK, so how about these sentences: 1. She made the decision that she would give them chocolate. The "that" clause here is an appositive even though it cannot be used by itself: * She made that she would give them chocolate. It is a restricted appositive, correct? 2. She was pleased that they gave her chocolate. (Can anyone tell I'm trying to diet???) This sentence transforms "That they gave her chocolate pleased her" to the passive voice, with the "that" clause is also being nominal. Having been caught off guard yesterday, I am now working through this whole concept yet again, just to be sure. :) Beth Beth Rapp Young http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~byoung University of Central Florida >From Promise to Prominence: Celebrating 40 Years.

[log in to unmask] 3/9/2005 1:30:51 PM >>>

Martha's description is both cogent and clear. As with much of our recent discussion , this one centers around both structure and function. A noun clause, as Martha points out, has a different internal structure than a relative clause does. (Perhaps the best argument for seeing the relative "pronoun" as a "pronoun" is its difference from the noun clause "that", but it's hard not to say that without anticipating objections.) Noun clauses and relative clauses can function in the same slot (as postnominal modifiers). More often than not, the analysis isn't overly important. I have had good luck with examples drawn from mental process verbs that often take noun clauses as direct objects. I believe that she is my friend. My belief that she is my friend is deeply grounded. Students can see that the noun clause in the second sentence has been moved intact into this postnominal (appositional) role. Lots of times, these noun clauses act to restrict down fairly abstract verb derived nouns like belief, hope, conclusion, conjecture and so on. (His hope that we will come... His conjecture that the building will collapse... Her wish that we would stop quarreling...) If the noun they are modifying appositionally is already a category of one, then the appositional noun clause will be nonrestrictive. (Her dearest hope, that her children would graduate from college, finally came to pass.) These aren't the only ways that noun clause apposition is generated or shows up, but it seems to get the idea across fairly successfully on first presentation. Once the students recognize it as a noun clause, it's easier to see what's happening when we shift it around. Because much grammar is still fairly new to me, I can sympathize. I remember how hard it was for this distinction to come clear. I hope that helps. Craig Martha Kolln wrote:

Beth, I would add to Bruce's description of the two "that"s: In the relative clause, "that" has a slot to fill in the clause

itself--that

of subject (and this is always true of the relative pronouns and relative adverbs that introduce adjectival clauses: pronouns fill a nominal slot or, in the case of the possessive "whose," a determiner slot; relative adverbs function as an adverbial in the clause); in the nominal clause, "that" serves only as an introducer, a nominalizer, with no function in the clause itself. Students who have learned traditional diagramming can picture the nominalizer "that" hovering over the clause, like an outsider; they can picture the relative pronoun firmly settled on or attached to the clause's main line. I call the relative-clause "that" a relative pronoun (I've learned only recently that this term is debatable); I call the nominalizer "that" an expletive, as many traditional grammarians do. Martha

Beth,

I would like to mention how I approach this with my students. This may help, though you seem to reach the same point another way.

One function of an adjective is to identify the reference of a

noun.

The noun also can serve to help identify the reference of another noun. This is the appositive. By the same token the noun clause

and

the adjective clause can both have an identifying function. There are a good number of particular nouns that need further identification, and the noun clause is naturally used with them: fact, claim, rumor, statement, decision, idea, etc. These all

denote

concepts which are potentially worded as sentences. In such cases

it

is possible to express (redundantly) both functions (identifying adjective/statement) by repeating the connective "that." Hence, "They espoused the belief that is that God exists" has two connectives. The first "that" is the connective of an adjective clause (relative, pointing to "belief") and the second is the connective of the noun clause. If you can build this redundant construction logically, then you have the appositive.

Bruce

[log in to unmask] 3/9/2005 7:45:48 AM >>>

Thanks, everyone. The "which" test does work on sentence 1, but

not

sentence 2. Maybe we idiomatically prefer "the fact that . . . "

or

maybe I should have agreed that sentence 2 was an appositive? I can

see

that it's definitely an appositive in the sentence "That fact, that

they

didn't like chocolate, surprised her"--but that's not the same sentence. Ultimately, I guess it doesn't matter that much. These sentences

won't

appear on any test--the students wrote the sentences for a

different

activity. I can just agree that sometimes it's really hard to tell

what

a clause is doing, just like it's sometimes really hard to tell what

a

prepositional phrase is doing, and leave it at that. Thanks, Beth

Here are a couple of example sentences with the suspected

appositives

in brackets: 1. The book, [that was titled 'Great Expectations',] was a

classic.

2. The fact [that they didn't like chocolate] surprised her.

Beth Rapp Young http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~byoung

<http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/%7Ebyoung>

University of Central Florida >From Promise to Prominence: Celebrating 40 Years. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and

select

"Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------020706090907050305020007-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:18:48 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dick, There's no question that that-relatives and wh-relatives function = similarly, although there is a very subtle and insightful study by = Dwight Bolinger titled _That's that_ that discusses the meaning "that" = may bring to a relative clause. It's been some time since I read it, = but I think I'll have another go at it. It was a very rewarding piece. The similarity of function, though, is a similarity in clause structure = and function. The clauses are modifiers of nouns, that is, have head = nouns. They are alike in that they have systematic gaps. Whatever = thematic role the embedded noun had in the RC, that spot shows a gap, = whether the COMP is "that" or wh-x. The only difference between them is = that that-rels have only deletion but wh-rels have deletion and = movement. The fact that even the subject position can be empty is = demonstrate by island constraint violations in sentences like=20 *The fries that hamburgers and 0 were served tasted greasy. =20 That there may be subtle differences in meaning between that-rels and = wh-rels is a natural consequence of the fact that both structures exist. = This happens when two words arise that are near synonyms. The language = finds a way to differentiate them. There will be overlap, but they will = be slightly distinct. I've just been dealing with this in another area = in a paper I'm just finishing with a couple of grad students. The = suffixes -nce and -ncy have a common source in Late Latin present = participles like "diligentia". In the 2nd c. the /t/ assibilated = producing a pronunciation reflected in the -nc- spelling and in a word = like "intelligentsia". But -nce and -ncy now differ in that -nce = typically has the meaning of "quality" and -ncy may be either "quality" = or "state". The meanings of etymologically identical suffixes are = diverging but are not completely distinct. The same is true with = that-rels and wh-rels. But to address the reasons why "that" simply is not a pronoun, again, = consider the following: Rel "that" is always unstressed. Pronominal "that" is stressed. Rel "that" never exhibits the plural form "those". Pronominal "that" = does. Rel "that" can't take a genitive suffix. Pronominal "that" can't = either, but we can get "that one's". Rel "that" can't occur after a preposition as its object. Pronominal = "that" can. In short. Rel "that" has none of the properties of a pronoun, for the = simple reason that it's identical to subordinating conjunction "that". = This explanation accounts neatly for the facts. The pronoun analysis = presents a whole set of problems that are anomalous. Herb =20 Herb, Still, intuitively, it's hard to see how in the following pair, we are using "who" and "that" differently. The boss who hired me ... The boss that hired me ... They sure feel like they're interchangeable and performing the same function. Might it be that they evolved on different historical paths but that in the mental grammar of the typical present-day speaker of English have come to be identical in function? If so, wouldn't that function be that of relative pronoun? Dick Veit ________________________ =20 Richard Veit Department of English, UNCW Wilmington, NC 28403-5947 910-962-3324 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:40 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who" Helene, To expand on my cryptic response to Martha, "that" is the older of the two ways of starting a relative clause. "Who" doesn't appear in relative clauses until the 15th century. "That" appears six centuries earlier. At the time, "that", or its ancestor, was not a pronoun. It also is not a pronoun in modern English. It is simply a subordinating conjunction. This addresses directly the question of whether or not "that" can refer to humans. It's a conjunction. Conjunctions don't refer to anything. Using "that" in something like "The man that met me at the airport" is fine because "that" is a subordinating conjunction and doesn't replace the subject or stand for the subject or refer to "the man" because only pronouns refer and it's not a pronoun. The rule that "that" can't refer to humans is a stylistic preference based on a faulty grammatical analysis. I don't claim to be the first to argue that relative "that" isn't a pronoun. Otto Jespersen, probably the greatest grammarian ever in the history of English, argued for it in great detail in the first half of the 20th century. I haven't presented the evidence for the conjunction analysis, because I've done that before on this list, but I'll be glad to if you'd like to see it. Herb Stahlke Another Ball Stater To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:41:42 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much = is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic = evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a = subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between = the "thats" in=20 I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a = pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is = seriously flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say = "that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it = functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a = relative clause has no function within the clause. It simply introduces = it. It is not subject, object, OP, or anything else. Those = relationships are marked by the absence of a noun phrase in the = appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both = embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements = of verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers = of nouns. It is the modifier relationship that leads to the structural = gaps exhibited by relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the = analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of = the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely = sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term = used to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur = after nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 = appositives doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think = they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather = than modifiers, and calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still = not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there = seems to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun = (who, with its various forms, and which, when functioning within these = adjectival clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a = complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We = tend to agree that it is a complementizer in noun clauses precisely = because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content = clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same = structures, but differing in context by function?) The argument for = these as appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that = that functions differently. Is the notion of appositional noun clause = somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of the role of that as = pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:04:12 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__Part9EBDE12C.0__=" --=__Part9EBDE12C.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herb, Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that certain adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with a pronoun. In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so maybe it doesn't help after all. John is taller than George. John is taller than George is. John is taller than George is tall. The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing John's height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing that the -er is referring to, the degree of John's tallness. Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it isn't the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first three points of the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a "pronominalized subordinating conjunction." Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>> Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" in I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__Part9EBDE12C.0__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Herb,

Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that = certain adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be = connected with a pronoun. In this case, however, someone might = want to argue for a pro-adverb, so maybe it doesn't help after = all.

John is taller than George.

John is taller than George is.

John is taller than George is tall.

The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, = comparing John's height to it. It is relative by referring to the sam= e= thing that the -er is referring to, the degree of John's tallness. =

Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to = show that it isn't the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at = least in the first three points of the previous post. Perhaps we can = view it as a "pronominalized subordinating conjunction."

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM = >>>

Craig,

I don't think anyone questions = whether wh-words are pronouns. That much is pretty clear. The = problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic evidence is overwhelming= = that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a subordinating conjunction, = that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" in

I know= = that it's raining.

and

The rain that's falling now will flood= = the fields.

They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in = relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar = tradition that is seriously flawed in many ways, this being one of = them. When you say "that is a pronoun in some camps and a = complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you = beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no function within = the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object,= = OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence o= =66= a noun phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that".

Content = clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded = sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of = verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of = nouns. It is the modifier relationship that leads to the structural = gaps exhibited by relative clauses but not by content clauses.

I = don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis= = of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the = term appositive. Here are some examples.

1. My brother Bill = ...
2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ...
3. = Bill, who lives in Chicago, ...
4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, = ...
5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ...
6. The idea that = Bill lives in Chicago ...
etc.

At best, appositive is a function,= = not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a function. I = think rather that it's a traditional term used to describe a disparate = variety of structures all of which occur after nouns. It has some = usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives doesn't = bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different= = structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and = calling them appositives just confuses matters.

But this is where = poorly defined traditional grammar terms get = us.

Herb
Herb,
    I know we have gone back and= = =66orth on this one before, and I'm still not convinced, but I think it may= = be important to clarify that there seems to be agreement that there is such= = a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its various forms, and which, when= = =66unctioning within these adjectival clauses), but that is a pronoun in = some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a = relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer in noun = clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun = clause.
    I'm wondering whether you see any difference = between a content clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are thes= e= the same structures, but differing in context by function=3F) The argument= = =66or these as appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense = that that functions differently. Is the notion of appositional noun clause = somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, = at least as you see it=3F Should we discard the = category=3F

Craig

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please= = visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__Part9EBDE12C.0__=-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:19:14 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Katz, Seth" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGVyYjoNCiANCkknbSBub3QgZ2V0dGluZyBob3cgdGhhdCBpbiBhbiBhZGplY3RpdmUgY2xhdXNl LS1hIGNsYXVzZSBtb2RpZnlpbmcgYSBub3VuLS1pcyBub3QgYSByZWxhdGl2ZSBwcm9ub3VuLCBi dXQgaXMgYSBzdWJvcmRpbmF0aW5nIGNvbmp1bmN0aW9uLiAgSSdtIG5vdCBzdXJlIHdoYXQgeW91 IG1lYW4gYnkgeW91ciB1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIHRlcm0gInN1Ym9yZGluYXRpbmcgY29uanVuY3Rpb24i LCB3aGljaCBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgYXMgcmVmZXJyaW5nIHRvIGEgd29yZCB0aGF0IG1hcmtzIGFu IGFkdmVyYiBjbGF1c2UgKGUuZy4gYmVjYXVzZSkuIERPIHlvdSBzaW1wbHkgbWVhbiB0aGF0ICJ0 aGF0IiB3aXRoIGEgY2xhdXNlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBhIG5vdW4sIGEgY2xhdXNlIHRoYXQgc2VlbXMg dG8gbW9kaWZ5IHRoZSBub3VuLCBzaW1wbHkgbWFya3MgdGhlIGRlcGVuZGVudCBzdGF0dXMgb2Yg dGhlIGNsYXVzZT8NCiANCkFsc28sIHlvdSBzYXkgdGhhdCANCltzbmlwXQ0KQnV0IHRvIGFkZHJl c3MgdGhlIHJlYXNvbnMgd2h5ICJ0aGF0IiBzaW1wbHkgaXMgbm90IGEgcHJvbm91biwgYWdhaW4s IGNvbnNpZGVyIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmc6DQoNClJlbCAidGhhdCIgaXMgYWx3YXlzIHVuc3RyZXNz ZWQuICBQcm9ub21pbmFsICJ0aGF0IiBpcyBzdHJlc3NlZC4NClJlbCAidGhhdCIgbmV2ZXIgZXho aWJpdHMgdGhlIHBsdXJhbCBmb3JtICJ0aG9zZSIuICBQcm9ub21pbmFsICJ0aGF0IiBkb2VzLg0K UmVsICJ0aGF0IiBjYW4ndCB0YWtlIGEgZ2VuaXRpdmUgc3VmZml4LiAgUHJvbm9taW5hbCAidGhh dCIgY2FuJ3QgZWl0aGVyLCBidXQgd2UgY2FuIGdldCAidGhhdCBvbmUncyIuDQpSZWwgInRoYXQi IGNhbid0IG9jY3VyIGFmdGVyIGEgcHJlcG9zaXRpb24gYXMgaXRzIG9iamVjdC4gIFByb25vbWlu YWwgInRoYXQiIGNhbi4NCg0KT0s6IHRoZXNlIGFyZSBmZWF0dXJlcyBvZiBwcm9ub3VuczsgYnV0 IG9uIHRoZSBjb250cmFyeSwNCg0KMS4JQXJlbid0IHJlbGF0aXZlIHByb25vdW5zIGdlbmVyYWxs eSB1bnN0cmVzc2VkIChvciBhcmUgbXkgZWFycyB1bnR1dG9yZWQpPw0KMi4JUmVsYXRpdmUgcHJv bm91bnMgIndobyIgYW5kICJ3aGljaCIgZXhoaWJpdCBubyBpbmZsZWN0ZWQgcGx1cmFsIGZvcm0t LXRob3VnaCB0aGV5IGFyZSB1c2VkIGZvciBwbHVyYWwgcmVmZXJlbmNlOyBhbmQgUmVsICJ0aGF0 IiBzZWVtcyB0byBkbyBzbyBhcyB3ZWxsICgiVGhlIGJvb2svcyB0aGF0IEkgYm91Z2h0IikNCjMu CVllcywgUmVsICJ0aGF0IiBjYW4ndCB0YWtlIGEgZ2VuaXRpdmUgc3VmZml4OyBzbyB3ZSB1c2Ug Indob3NlIiAoIlRoZSBib29rIHRoYXQgd2FzIHRvcm4iIHZzLiAiVGhlIGJvb2sgd2hvc2UgY292 ZXIgd2FzIHRvcm4iKQ0KNC4JQW5kLCB5ZXMsIFJlbCAidGhhdCIgY2FuJ3QgYXBwZWFyIGluIHRo ZSBvYmplY3RpdmUgY2FzZSBwb3NpdGlvbnM7IHNvIHdlIHVzZSAid2hpY2giIGluc3RlYWQ6IA0K DQoqVGhlIHBsYXkgYWJvdXQgdGhhdCB3ZSBoYWQgaGVhcmQNClRoZSBwbGF5IGFib3V0IHdoaWNo IHdlIGhhZCBoZWFyZC4NCiANClNvLCBJIHN0aWxsIGRvbid0IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQuICBBbHRob3Vn aCwgaGlzdG9yaWNhbGx5LCAidGhhdCIgd2FzIG5vdCBhIFJlbGF0aXZlIFByb25vdW4sIEkgZG9u J3Qgc2VlIGhvdyBpdCBkb2Vzbid0IGJlaGF2ZSBsaWtlIG9uZSBub3ctLW9yIGVub3VnaCBsaWtl IG9uZSB0aGF0IGl0IG1hdHRlcnMuICBXaGF0IGFyZSB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbXMgdGhhdCBhcmUgY3Jl YXRlZCBieSBhbmFseXppbmcgaXQgYXMgc3VjaD8NCiANCkkgdW5kZXJzdGFuZCB0aGF0IHlvdSd2 ZSBleHBsYWluZWQgYWxsIHRoaXMgYmVmb3JlOyBidXQgSSBtdXN0IGFodmUgIm1pc3NlZCB0aGUg bWVtbyIgbGFzdCB0aW1lLiAgUGxlYXNlIGJlIHBhdGllbnQgd2l0aCBtZSwgYW5kIGlmIHBlb3Bs ZSB3b3VsZCByYXRoZXIsIHlvdSBjb3VsZCByZXBseSB0byBtZSBvZmYgbGlzdC4NCiANClRoYW5r cy0tDQpTZXRoIEthdHoNCkJyYWRsZXkgVW52aWVyc2l0eQ0KDQogDQoNCgktLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFs IE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLSANCglGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xp c2ggR3JhbW1hciBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgU3RhaGxrZSwgSGVyYmVydCBGLlcuIA0KCVNlbnQ6IFRo dSAzLzEwLzIwMDUgMTA6MTggQU0gDQoJVG86IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVSANCglD YzogDQoJU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFF1ZXN0aW9uIHJlICJUaGF0IiB2cy4gIldobyINCgkNCgkNCg0K CURpY2ssDQoJDQoJVGhlcmUncyBubyBxdWVzdGlvbiB0aGF0IHRoYXQtcmVsYXRpdmVzIGFuZCB3 aC1yZWxhdGl2ZXMgZnVuY3Rpb24gc2ltaWxhcmx5LCBhbHRob3VnaCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIHZlcnkg c3VidGxlIGFuZCBpbnNpZ2h0ZnVsIHN0dWR5IGJ5IER3aWdodCBCb2xpbmdlciB0aXRsZWQgX1Ro YXQncyB0aGF0XyB0aGF0IGRpc2N1c3NlcyB0aGUgbWVhbmluZyAidGhhdCIgbWF5IGJyaW5nIHRv IGEgcmVsYXRpdmUgY2xhdXNlLiAgSXQncyBiZWVuIHNvbWUgdGltZSBzaW5jZSBJIHJlYWQgaXQs IGJ1dCBJIHRoaW5rIEknbGwgaGF2ZSBhbm90aGVyIGdvIGF0IGl0LiAgSXQgd2FzIGEgdmVyeSBy ZXdhcmRpbmcgcGllY2UuDQoJDQoJVGhlIHNpbWlsYXJpdHkgb2YgZnVuY3Rpb24sIHRob3VnaCwg aXMgYSBzaW1pbGFyaXR5IGluIGNsYXVzZSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgYW5kIGZ1bmN0aW9uLiAgVGhlIGNs YXVzZXMgYXJlIG1vZGlmaWVycyBvZiBub3VucywgdGhhdCBpcywgaGF2ZSBoZWFkIG5vdW5zLiAg VGhleSBhcmUgYWxpa2UgaW4gdGhhdCB0aGV5IGhhdmUgc3lzdGVtYXRpYyBnYXBzLiAgV2hhdGV2 ZXIgdGhlbWF0aWMgcm9sZSB0aGUgZW1iZWRkZWQgbm91biBoYWQgaW4gdGhlIFJDLCB0aGF0IHNw b3Qgc2hvd3MgYSBnYXAsIHdoZXRoZXIgdGhlIENPTVAgaXMgInRoYXQiIG9yIHdoLXguICBUaGUg b25seSBkaWZmZXJlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlbSBpcyB0aGF0IHRoYXQtcmVscyBoYXZlIG9ubHkg ZGVsZXRpb24gYnV0IHdoLXJlbHMgaGF2ZSBkZWxldGlvbiBhbmQgbW92ZW1lbnQuICBUaGUgZmFj dCB0aGF0IGV2ZW4gdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgcG9zaXRpb24gY2FuIGJlIGVtcHR5IGlzIGRlbW9uc3Ry YXRlIGJ5IGlzbGFuZCBjb25zdHJhaW50IHZpb2xhdGlvbnMgaW4gc2VudGVuY2VzIGxpa2UNCgkN CgkqVGhlIGZyaWVzIHRoYXQgaGFtYnVyZ2VycyBhbmQgMCB3ZXJlIHNlcnZlZCB0YXN0ZWQgZ3Jl YXN5LiANCgkNCglUaGF0IHRoZXJlIG1heSBiZSBzdWJ0bGUgZGlmZmVyZW5jZXMgaW4gbWVhbmlu ZyBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoYXQtcmVscyBhbmQgd2gtcmVscyBpcyBhIG5hdHVyYWwgY29uc2VxdWVuY2Ug b2YgdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBib3RoIHN0cnVjdHVyZXMgZXhpc3QuICBUaGlzIGhhcHBlbnMgd2hl biB0d28gd29yZHMgYXJpc2UgdGhhdCBhcmUgbmVhciBzeW5vbnltcy4gIFRoZSBsYW5ndWFnZSBm aW5kcyBhIHdheSB0byBkaWZmZXJlbnRpYXRlIHRoZW0uICBUaGVyZSB3aWxsIGJlIG92ZXJsYXAs IGJ1dCB0aGV5IHdpbGwgYmUgc2xpZ2h0bHkgZGlzdGluY3QuICBJJ3ZlIGp1c3QgYmVlbiBkZWFs aW5nIHdpdGggdGhpcyBpbiBhbm90aGVyIGFyZWEgaW4gYSBwYXBlciBJJ20ganVzdCBmaW5pc2hp bmcgd2l0aCBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiBncmFkIHN0dWRlbnRzLiAgVGhlIHN1ZmZpeGVzIC1uY2UgYW5k IC1uY3kgaGF2ZSBhIGNvbW1vbiBzb3VyY2UgaW4gTGF0ZSBMYXRpbiBwcmVzZW50IHBhcnRpY2lw bGVzIGxpa2UgImRpbGlnZW50aWEiLiAgSW4gdGhlIDJuZCBjLiB0aGUgL3QvIGFzc2liaWxhdGVk IHByb2R1Y2luZyBhIHByb251bmNpYXRpb24gcmVmbGVjdGVkIGluIHRoZSAtbmMtIHNwZWxsaW5n IGFuZCBpbiBhIHdvcmQgbGlrZSAiaW50ZWxsaWdlbnRzaWEiLiAgQnV0IC1uY2UgYW5kIC1uY3kg bm93IGRpZmZlciBpbiB0aGF0IC1uY2UgdHlwaWNhbGx5IGhhcyB0aGUgbWVhbmluZyBvZiAicXVh bGl0eSIgYW5kIC1uY3kgbWF5IGJlIGVpdGhlciAicXVhbGl0eSIgb3IgInN0YXRlIi4gIFRoZSBt ZWFuaW5ncyBvZiBldHltb2xvZ2ljYWxseSBpZGVudGljYWwgc3VmZml4ZXMgYXJlIGRpdmVyZ2lu ZyBidXQgYXJlIG5vdCBjb21wbGV0ZWx5IGRpc3RpbmN0LiAgVGhlIHNhbWUgaXMgdHJ1ZSB3aXRo IHRoYXQtcmVscyBhbmQgd2gtcmVscy4NCgkNCglCdXQgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyB0aGUgcmVhc29ucyB3 aHkgInRoYXQiIHNpbXBseSBpcyBub3QgYSBwcm9ub3VuLCBhZ2FpbiwgY29uc2lkZXIgdGhlIGZv bGxvd2luZzoNCgkNCglSZWwgInRoYXQiIGlzIGFsd2F5cyB1bnN0cmVzc2VkLiAgUHJvbm9taW5h bCAidGhhdCIgaXMgc3RyZXNzZWQuDQoJUmVsICJ0aGF0IiBuZXZlciBleGhpYml0cyB0aGUgcGx1 cmFsIGZvcm0gInRob3NlIi4gIFByb25vbWluYWwgInRoYXQiIGRvZXMuDQoJUmVsICJ0aGF0IiBj YW4ndCB0YWtlIGEgZ2VuaXRpdmUgc3VmZml4LiAgUHJvbm9taW5hbCAidGhhdCIgY2FuJ3QgZWl0 aGVyLCBidXQgd2UgY2FuIGdldCAidGhhdCBvbmUncyIuDQoJUmVsICJ0aGF0IiBjYW4ndCBvY2N1 ciBhZnRlciBhIHByZXBvc2l0aW9uIGFzIGl0cyBvYmplY3QuICBQcm9ub21pbmFsICJ0aGF0IiBj YW4uDQoJDQoJSW4gc2hvcnQuICBSZWwgInRoYXQiIGhhcyBub25lIG9mIHRoZSBwcm9wZXJ0aWVz IG9mIGEgcHJvbm91biwgZm9yIHRoZSBzaW1wbGUgcmVhc29uIHRoYXQgaXQncyBpZGVudGljYWwg dG8gc3Vib3JkaW5hdGluZyBjb25qdW5jdGlvbiAidGhhdCIuICBUaGlzIGV4cGxhbmF0aW9uIGFj Y291bnRzIG5lYXRseSBmb3IgdGhlIGZhY3RzLiAgVGhlIHByb25vdW4gYW5hbHlzaXMgcHJlc2Vu dHMgYSB3aG9sZSBzZXQgb2YgcHJvYmxlbXMgdGhhdCBhcmUgYW5vbWFsb3VzLg0KCQ0KCUhlcmIN CgkNCgkNCgkNCgkNCgkNCgkNCglIZXJiLA0KCQ0KCVN0aWxsLCBpbnR1aXRpdmVseSwgaXQncyBo YXJkIHRvIHNlZSBob3cgaW4gdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBwYWlyLCB3ZSBhcmUNCgl1c2luZyAid2hv IiBhbmQgInRoYXQiIGRpZmZlcmVudGx5Lg0KCQ0KCSAgICAgICAgVGhlIGJvc3Mgd2hvIGhpcmVk IG1lIC4uLg0KCSAgICAgICAgVGhlIGJvc3MgdGhhdCBoaXJlZCBtZSAuLi4NCgkNCglUaGV5IHN1 cmUgZmVlbCBsaWtlIHRoZXkncmUgaW50ZXJjaGFuZ2VhYmxlIGFuZCBwZXJmb3JtaW5nIHRoZSBz YW1lDQoJZnVuY3Rpb24uIE1pZ2h0IGl0IGJlIHRoYXQgdGhleSBldm9sdmVkIG9uIGRpZmZlcmVu dCBoaXN0b3JpY2FsIHBhdGhzDQoJYnV0IHRoYXQgaW4gdGhlIG1lbnRhbCBncmFtbWFyIG9mIHRo ZSB0eXBpY2FsIHByZXNlbnQtZGF5IHNwZWFrZXIgb2YNCglFbmdsaXNoIGhhdmUgY29tZSB0byBi ZSBpZGVudGljYWwgaW4gZnVuY3Rpb24/IElmIHNvLCB3b3VsZG4ndCB0aGF0DQoJZnVuY3Rpb24g YmUgdGhhdCBvZiByZWxhdGl2ZSBwcm9ub3VuPw0KCQ0KCURpY2sgVmVpdA0KCV9fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KCQ0KCVJpY2hhcmQgVmVpdA0KCURlcGFydG1lbnQgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCwg VU5DVw0KCVdpbG1pbmd0b24sIE5DIDI4NDAzLTU5NDcNCgk5MTAtOTYyLTMzMjQNCgkNCgkNCgkt LS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KCUZyb206IEFzc2VtYmx5IGZvciB0aGUgVGVhY2hp bmcgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyDQoJW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVd IE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBTdGFobGtlLCBIZXJiZXJ0IEYuVy4NCglTZW50OiBXZWRuZXNkYXksIE1h cmNoIDA5LCAyMDA1IDk6NDAgUE0NCglUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQoJU3Vi amVjdDogUmU6IFF1ZXN0aW9uIHJlICJUaGF0IiB2cy4gIldobyINCgkNCglIZWxlbmUsDQoJDQoJ VG8gZXhwYW5kIG9uIG15IGNyeXB0aWMgcmVzcG9uc2UgdG8gTWFydGhhLCAidGhhdCIgaXMgdGhl IG9sZGVyIG9mIHRoZQ0KCXR3byB3YXlzIG9mIHN0YXJ0aW5nIGEgcmVsYXRpdmUgY2xhdXNlLiAg IldobyIgZG9lc24ndCBhcHBlYXIgaW4NCglyZWxhdGl2ZSBjbGF1c2VzIHVudGlsIHRoZSAxNXRo IGNlbnR1cnkuICAiVGhhdCIgYXBwZWFycyBzaXggY2VudHVyaWVzDQoJZWFybGllci4gIEF0IHRo ZSB0aW1lLCAidGhhdCIsIG9yIGl0cyBhbmNlc3Rvciwgd2FzIG5vdCBhIHByb25vdW4uICBJdA0K CWFsc28gaXMgbm90IGEgcHJvbm91biBpbiBtb2Rlcm4gRW5nbGlzaC4gSXQgaXMgc2ltcGx5IGEg c3Vib3JkaW5hdGluZw0KCWNvbmp1bmN0aW9uLiAgVGhpcyBhZGRyZXNzZXMgZGlyZWN0bHkgdGhl IHF1ZXN0aW9uIG9mIHdoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90DQoJInRoYXQiIGNhbiByZWZlciB0byBodW1hbnMu ICBJdCdzIGEgY29uanVuY3Rpb24uICBDb25qdW5jdGlvbnMgZG9uJ3QNCglyZWZlciB0byBhbnl0 aGluZy4gIFVzaW5nICJ0aGF0IiBpbiBzb21ldGhpbmcgbGlrZSAiVGhlIG1hbiB0aGF0IG1ldCBt ZQ0KCWF0IHRoZSBhaXJwb3J0IiBpcyBmaW5lIGJlY2F1c2UgInRoYXQiIGlzIGEgc3Vib3JkaW5h dGluZyBjb25qdW5jdGlvbg0KCWFuZCBkb2Vzbid0IHJlcGxhY2UgdGhlIHN1YmplY3Qgb3Igc3Rh bmQgZm9yIHRoZSBzdWJqZWN0IG9yIHJlZmVyIHRvDQoJInRoZSBtYW4iIGJlY2F1c2Ugb25seSBw cm9ub3VucyByZWZlciBhbmQgaXQncyBub3QgYSBwcm9ub3VuLg0KCQ0KCVRoZSBydWxlIHRoYXQg InRoYXQiIGNhbid0IHJlZmVyIHRvIGh1bWFucyBpcyBhIHN0eWxpc3RpYyBwcmVmZXJlbmNlDQoJ YmFzZWQgb24gYSBmYXVsdHkgZ3JhbW1hdGljYWwgYW5hbHlzaXMuICBJIGRvbid0IGNsYWltIHRv IGJlIHRoZSBmaXJzdA0KCXRvIGFyZ3VlIHRoYXQgcmVsYXRpdmUgInRoYXQiIGlzbid0IGEgcHJv bm91bi4gIE90dG8gSmVzcGVyc2VuLCBwcm9iYWJseQ0KCXRoZSBncmVhdGVzdCBncmFtbWFyaWFu IGV2ZXIgaW4gdGhlIGhpc3Rvcnkgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCwgYXJndWVkIGZvciBpdCBpbg0KCWdyZWF0 IGRldGFpbCBpbiB0aGUgZmlyc3QgaGFsZiBvZiB0aGUgMjB0aCBjZW50dXJ5Lg0KCQ0KCUkgaGF2 ZW4ndCBwcmVzZW50ZWQgdGhlIGV2aWRlbmNlIGZvciB0aGUgY29uanVuY3Rpb24gYW5hbHlzaXMs IGJlY2F1c2UNCglJJ3ZlIGRvbmUgdGhhdCBiZWZvcmUgb24gdGhpcyBsaXN0LCBidXQgSSdsbCBi ZSBnbGFkIHRvIGlmIHlvdSdkIGxpa2UgdG8NCglzZWUgaXQuDQoJDQoJSGVyYiBTdGFobGtlDQoJ QW5vdGhlciBCYWxsIFN0YXRlcg0KCQ0KCVRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBs aXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KCSAgICAgaHR0 cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sDQoJYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAi Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCgkNCglWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0 cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KCQ0KCVRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBw bGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KCSAgICAgaHR0cDovL2xp c3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sDQoJYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBv ciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCgkNCglWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0 ZWcub3JnLw0KCQ0KDQo= ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:09:19 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Seth, A good set of questions. >I'm not getting how that in an adjective clause--a clause modifying a = noun--is >not a relative pronoun, but is a subordinating conjunction. = I'm not sure what >you mean by your use of the term "subordinating = conjunction", which I >understand as referring to a word that marks an = adverb clause (e.g. because). >DO you simply mean that "that" with a = clause following a noun, a clause that >seems to modify the noun, simply = marks the dependent status of the clause? =20 >Also, you say that=20 >[snip] >But to address the reasons why "that" simply is not a pronoun, again, = consider >the following: >Rel "that" is always unstressed. Pronominal "that" is stressed. >Rel "that" never exhibits the plural form "those". Pronominal "that" = does. >Rel "that" can't take a genitive suffix. Pronominal "that" can't = either, but >we can get "that one's". >Rel "that" can't occur after a preposition as its object. Pronominal = "that" >can. >OK: these are features of pronouns; but on the contrary, >1. Aren't relative pronouns generally unstressed (or are my ears = >untutored)? >2. Relative pronouns "who" and "which" exhibit no inflected plural = >form--though they are used for plural reference; and Rel "that" seems = to do so >as well ("The book/s that I bought") >3. Yes, Rel "that" can't take a genitive suffix; so we use "whose" = ("The >book that was torn" vs. "The book whose cover was torn") >4. And, yes, Rel "that" can't appear in the objective case positions; = so we >use "which" instead:=20 >*The play about that we had heard >The play about which we had heard. Let me take these one at a time. 1. Yes, wh-pronouns are unstressed in relative clauses. They aren't = typically in questions, but they are in RCs. However, the contrast I = was making was between "that" as a conjunction and "that" as a pronoun. = The former is not stressed and the latter is. =20 2. Yes, again. The wh-words lost their plurals and case forms, except = for "whose" and "whom," in Middle English. But the point here is that = if "that" is a pronoun, then it has a plural form "those". None of the = wh-words does under any circumstances. We say "those books", but not = "the books those I bought". We have to use "that" in the latter case. = This is a serious problem for calling relative "that" a pronoun. 3. This seriously begs the question. If "that" is a conjunction, we = have an excellent and natural explanation for why it doesn't have a = genitive. Conjunctions don't. Nouns and pronouns do. If "that" is a = pronoun, then we have to have an explanation for why it doesn't have a = genitive. We can't argue that it's because "that" as a demonstrative = determiner doesn't either because syntactically a genitive NP fills the = determiner slot. Check any of the major reference grammars on that. 4. This also begs the question, but my argument wasn't very strong = anyway, since we don't typically say "I saw which on the table". >So, I still don't understand. Although, historically, "that" was not a = >Relative Pronoun, I don't see how it doesn't behave like one now--or = enough >like one that it matters. What are the problems that are = created by analyzing >it as such? =20 I think I've handled objections 1-4. If so, the appearance that "that" = behaves like a pronoun is the result of a faulty analysis of its = behavior and a rejection of the morpho-syntactic facts. Let me note = again that this analysis of "that" doesn't originate with me. I = expanded on it in my 1976 Language article, but the basic case is made = eloquently and in great detail by Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English = Grammar on Historical Principles, one of the more important studies of = English grammar. The last time we had this discussion on the list there was also great = resistance to the conjunction analysis. No one seriously challenged the = morpho-syntactic facts, but people wanted to hold on to the relative = pronoun analysis in the face of them and proposed psycholinguistic = experiments that can't be performed and gut feeling as reasons for = holding on to it. Tradition is very strong in grammar, but in this = case, it's wrong. Not that any high school or college student is likely = to be harmed by perpetuating this faulty tradition. Herb =20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of = Stahlke, Herbert F.W.=20 Sent: Thu 3/10/2005 10:18 AM=20 To: [log in to unmask] Cc:=20 Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who" =09 =09 Dick, =09 There's no question that that-relatives and wh-relatives function = similarly, although there is a very subtle and insightful study by = Dwight Bolinger titled _That's that_ that discusses the meaning "that" = may bring to a relative clause. It's been some time since I read it, = but I think I'll have another go at it. It was a very rewarding piece. =09 The similarity of function, though, is a similarity in clause structure = and function. The clauses are modifiers of nouns, that is, have head = nouns. They are alike in that they have systematic gaps. Whatever = thematic role the embedded noun had in the RC, that spot shows a gap, = whether the COMP is "that" or wh-x. The only difference between them is = that that-rels have only deletion but wh-rels have deletion and = movement. The fact that even the subject position can be empty is = demonstrate by island constraint violations in sentences like =09 *The fries that hamburgers and 0 were served tasted greasy.=20 =09 That there may be subtle differences in meaning between that-rels and = wh-rels is a natural consequence of the fact that both structures exist. = This happens when two words arise that are near synonyms. The language = finds a way to differentiate them. There will be overlap, but they will = be slightly distinct. I've just been dealing with this in another area = in a paper I'm just finishing with a couple of grad students. The = suffixes -nce and -ncy have a common source in Late Latin present = participles like "diligentia". In the 2nd c. the /t/ assibilated = producing a pronunciation reflected in the -nc- spelling and in a word = like "intelligentsia". But -nce and -ncy now differ in that -nce = typically has the meaning of "quality" and -ncy may be either "quality" = or "state". The meanings of etymologically identical suffixes are = diverging but are not completely distinct. The same is true with = that-rels and wh-rels. =09 But to address the reasons why "that" simply is not a pronoun, again, = consider the following: =09 Rel "that" is always unstressed. Pronominal "that" is stressed. Rel "that" never exhibits the plural form "those". Pronominal "that" = does. Rel "that" can't take a genitive suffix. Pronominal "that" can't = either, but we can get "that one's". Rel "that" can't occur after a preposition as its object. Pronominal = "that" can. =09 In short. Rel "that" has none of the properties of a pronoun, for the = simple reason that it's identical to subordinating conjunction "that". = This explanation accounts neatly for the facts. The pronoun analysis = presents a whole set of problems that are anomalous. =09 Herb =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 Herb, =09 Still, intuitively, it's hard to see how in the following pair, we are using "who" and "that" differently. =09 The boss who hired me ... The boss that hired me ... =09 They sure feel like they're interchangeable and performing the same function. Might it be that they evolved on different historical paths but that in the mental grammar of the typical present-day speaker of English have come to be identical in function? If so, wouldn't that function be that of relative pronoun? =09 Dick Veit ________________________ =09 Richard Veit Department of English, UNCW Wilmington, NC 28403-5947 910-962-3324 =09 =09 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:40 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who" =09 Helene, =09 To expand on my cryptic response to Martha, "that" is the older of the two ways of starting a relative clause. "Who" doesn't appear in relative clauses until the 15th century. "That" appears six centuries earlier. At the time, "that", or its ancestor, was not a pronoun. It also is not a pronoun in modern English. It is simply a subordinating conjunction. This addresses directly the question of whether or not "that" can refer to humans. It's a conjunction. Conjunctions don't refer to anything. Using "that" in something like "The man that met me at the airport" is fine because "that" is a subordinating conjunction and doesn't replace the subject or stand for the subject or refer to "the man" because only pronouns refer and it's not a pronoun. =09 The rule that "that" can't refer to humans is a stylistic preference based on a faulty grammatical analysis. I don't claim to be the first to argue that relative "that" isn't a pronoun. Otto Jespersen, = probably the greatest grammarian ever in the history of English, argued for it = in great detail in the first half of the 20th century. =09 I haven't presented the evidence for the conjunction analysis, because I've done that before on this list, but I'll be glad to if you'd like = to see it. =09 Herb Stahlke Another Ball Stater =09 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" =09 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ =09 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" =09 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ =09 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:17:50 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bruce, Interesting arguments! Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and also = reports and describes the use of "as" to introduce a relative clause, as = in cases like "not as many as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants = to". You're right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the = question of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. But = consider the alternative. If my arguments don't apply to relative = "that", then we have THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that = introduces noun clauses, the demonstrative pronoun, and the relative = "that". But the relative "that" behaves morpho-syntactically like the = conjunction, not like the demonstrative, so there's little reason for = positing the third. =20 "Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"? I like that. Just think = the potential it gives us as a model for naming lexical categories! Herb =20 Herb, Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that = certain adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with a = pronoun. In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so = maybe it doesn't help after all. John is taller than George. John is taller than George is. John is taller than George is tall. The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing = John's height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing that the = -er is referring to, the degree of John's tallness. Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it = isn't the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first three = points of the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a "pronominalized = subordinating conjunction." Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>> Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much = is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic = evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a = subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" = in I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a = pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously = flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in = some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no = function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, = OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun = phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both = embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of = verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is = the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by = relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the = analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely = sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used = to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after = nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives = doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and = calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still = not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems = to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with = its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival = clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it = functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer = in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content = clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, = but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as = appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. = Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the = misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard = the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:06:06 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060106040402090200090005" --------------060106040402090200090005 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herb, When I mentioned that which and who are pronouns, I was just trying to clarify the discussion a bit for anyone who wasn't around the last time. It was an attempt to reaffirm agreements. I'm still getting a little stuck not seeing content clauses and relative clauses as having slightly different structures and slightly different deletion rules. Here's my current attempt to muddle through. (In passing,. I'd like to say I do see three forms of "that" at work. That in a relative clause is certainly not the demonstrative pronoun. I was never trying to argue for that.) For a content clause, deletion is possible if the clause follows the main verb, quite often a mental process verb, in traditional direct object slot, and that is, as I see it, because the main clause verb is already explicit. I believe that she loves me. I believe she loves me. Both are very clear and highly grammatical. And I can make the same clause subject. That she loves me is believable. In this case, though, deletion isn't acceptable. I can't say She loves me is believable. In this case, I thank that is because loves seems to be the main verb, but turns out not to be, and the language requires or expects us to make that explicit ahead of time. In other words, we need the that to render the clause explicitly subordinate. It is clearly not a pronoun in any way, shape or form because it has no grammatical role within the clause itself. The that is also required if the clause shows up as a complement to a head noun. My belief that she loves me.... We can't say My belief she loves me is wrong. The that is required to subordinate or complementize the clause. It's not a pronoun, again, because it has no role within the clause. Here, I think, we are in deep harmony. For relative clauses, though, we have a slightly different deletion process. I can say everything that she touches or everything she touches, and the deletion doesn't give us problems. I can say Everything that touches her touches me, but not everything touches her touches me. The only way to explain that is to say that the clause seems to require an explicit subject, not at all an issue with content clauses because the "that" never remotely resembles a subject. (Without going into detail, the rule works well with which and whom as well. There's no deletion when they act as subject.) If that is subordinator or complementizer in these clauses as well, then I am forced to say that we need a complementizer to fill the subject slot because relative clauses won't allow us to leave that slot empty. The reason many of us are balking at this (I don't think it's just the bad habits of the old grammar) is that the that looks and feels like a pronoun when it does. Unlike the that in a content clause, it seems to be filling a grammatical role. We need to say that relative clauses cannot delete their pronoun or complementizer when there is no [other] subject explicitly rendered. It's a problem that simply never arises with content clauses. If the that acts in place of the subject and is not a pronoun, then we have to say there are relative clauses in which a subject never appears. This is a different frame of reference than I am used to. (And I have to admit that I am warming up to it a bit as I go.) The other problem, of course, is in deciding how much of this would just be a distraction in an undergrad grammar course. That is certainly different in some ways and similar in some ways to the (other?) relative pronouns. The big question is if it's sufficiently different to call it something else. If not, then we certainly need to assert that relative that and demonstrative that are not the same. To me, content clause that and relative clause that differ as well, at least in terms of deletion. In some way that never happens with content clauses, it takes on the look and feel of a pronoun. I hope all this makes sense. This time through, I think we are more elegant in the disagreement. (I can't think of anyone I would rather engage in this way; I suspect one way or another to learn from it.) Craig Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote: >Craig, > >I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" in > >I know that it's raining. > >and > >The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. > >They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". > >Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by relative clauses but not by content clauses. > >I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. > >1. My brother Bill ... >2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... >3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... >4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... >5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... >6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... >etc. > >At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and calling them appositives just confuses matters. > >But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. > >Herb >Herb, > I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. > I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard the category? > >Craig > >To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >and select "Join or leave the list" > >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------060106040402090200090005 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herb,
When I mentioned that which and who are pronouns, I was just trying to clarify the discussion a bit for anyone who wasn't around the last time. It was an attempt to reaffirm agreements.
I'm still getting a little stuck not seeing content clauses and relative clauses as having slightly different structures and slightly different deletion rules. Here's my current attempt to muddle through. (In passing,. I'd like to say I do see three forms of "that" at work. That in a relative clause is certainly not the demonstrative pronoun. I was never trying to argue for that.)
For a content clause, deletion is possible if the clause follows the main verb, quite often a mental process verb, in traditional direct object slot, and that is, as I see it, because the main clause verb is already explicit. I believe that she loves me. I believe she loves me. Both are very clear and highly grammatical. And I can make the same clause subject. That she loves me is believable. In this case, though, deletion isn't acceptable. I can't say She loves me is believable. In this case, I thank that is because loves seems to be the main verb, but turns out not to be, and the language requires or expects us to make that explicit ahead of time. In other words, we need the that to render the clause explicitly subordinate. It is clearly not a pronoun in any way, shape or form because it has no grammatical role within the clause itself. The that is also required if the clause shows up as a complement to a head noun. My belief that she loves me.... We can't say My belief she loves me is wrong. The that is required to subordinate or complementize the clause. It's not a pronoun, again, because it has no role within the clause. Here, I think, we are in deep harmony.
For relative clauses, though, we have a slightly different deletion process. I can say everything that she touches or everything she touches, and the deletion doesn't give us problems. I can say Everything that touches her touches me, but not everything touches her touches me. The only way to explain that is to say that the clause seems to require an explicit subject, not at all an issue with content clauses because the "that" never remotely resembles a subject. (Without going into detail, the rule works well with which and whom as well. There's no deletion when they act as subject.) If that is subordinator or complementizer in these clauses as well, then I am forced to say that we need a complementizer to fill the subject slot because relative clauses won't allow us to leave that slot empty. The reason many of us are balking at this (I don't think it's just the bad habits of the old grammar) is that the that looks and feels like a pronoun when it does. Unlike the that in a content clause, it seems to be filling a grammatical role.
We need to say that relative clauses cannot delete their pronoun or complementizer when there is no [other] subject explicitly rendered. It's a problem that simply never arises with content clauses. If the that acts in place of the subject and is not a pronoun, then we have to say there are relative clauses in which a subject never appears. This is a different frame of reference than I am used to. (And I have to admit that I am warming up to it a bit as I go.) The other problem, of course, is in deciding how much of this would just be a distraction in an undergrad grammar course. That is certainly different in some ways and similar in some ways to the (other?) relative pronouns. The big question is if it's sufficiently different to call it something else. If not, then we certainly need to assert that relative that and demonstrative that are not the same. To me, content clause that and relative clause that differ as well, at least in terms of deletion. In some way that never happens with content clauses, it takes on the look and feel of a pronoun.
I hope all this makes sense. This time through, I think we are more elegant in the disagreement. (I can't think of anyone I would rather engage in this way; I suspect one way or another to learn from it.)

Craig

Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:

[log in to unmask]">
Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" in I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------060106040402090200090005-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:47:28 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__Part24075A90.0__=" --=__Part24075A90.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herb, Maybe Occam (Ockham) would object, but I don't have a problem with three "that"s. 1) The demonstrative. This appears before nouns. It also has a pronoun form for use without the noun. There are four distinct morphological instances of the demonstrative: this, these, that, those. 2) The conjunction for a noun clause. This is the variety of noun clause often called a content clause. There is only one morphological manifestation. The noun clause may appear in virtually all the functions of a noun. The appositive (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion. 3) The conjunction for an adjective clause. This is the variety of adjective clause used to identify rather than describe or classify. It is always restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in this kind of clause. The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The idea of my last post is that you could argue that the conjunction of the noun clause (2) can be seen as being used as a pronoun as the connective for the adjective clause (3). The morphology of (2) and (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: (2) is independent of the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in its clause as a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent clause formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the stretch that one might be justified in calling (3) a pronominalized version of (2). It is of some interest here with regard to pronunciation that the conjunction than was often indistinguishable from then in 17th Century England and is still so in many dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative adverb of the degree clause while the second is either a relative adverb of a temporal clause (subordinate clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate clause). The second form is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. Thus we have three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as that, but here they are adverbs. Hope this helps. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM >>> Bruce, Interesting arguments! Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and also reports and describes the use of "as" to introduce a relative clause, as in cases like "not as many as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants to". You're right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the question of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. But consider the alternative. If my arguments don't apply to relative "that", then we have THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that introduces noun clauses, the demonstrative pronoun, and the relative "that". But the relative "that" behaves morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like the demonstrative, so there's little reason for positing the third. "Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"? I like that. Just think the potential it gives us as a model for naming lexical categories! Herb Herb, Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that certain adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with a pronoun. In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so maybe it doesn't help after all. John is taller than George. John is taller than George is. John is taller than George is tall. The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing John's height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing that the -er is referring to, the degree of John's tallness. Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it isn't the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first three points of the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a "pronominalized subordinating conjunction." Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>> Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" in I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__Part24075A90.0__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Herb,

Maybe Occam (Ockham) would object, but I don't have a problem with = three "that"s.

1) The demonstrative. This appears before nouns. It = also has a pronoun form for use without the noun. There are four = distinct morphological instances of the demonstrative: this, these, = that, those.

2) The conjunction for a noun clause. This is the = variety of noun clause often called a content clause. There is only one = morphological manifestation.  The noun clause may appear in = virtually all the functions of a noun. The appositive = (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion.

3) The conjunction for an adjective clause. This is = the variety of adjective clause used to identify rather than describe = or classify. It is always restrictive. The conjunction is = sometimes omitted in this kind of clause.

The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The idea of my last post= = is that you could argue that the conjunction of the noun clause (2) can be = seen as being used as a pronoun as the connective for the adjective clause = (3). The morphology of (2) and (3) is identical. The syntax is quite = different: (2) is independent of the clause it introduces, whereas (3)= = is typically an intergral part, yet as object = can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in its clause as= = a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent clause = =66ormulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the = stretch that one might be justified in calling (3) a = pronominalized version of (2).

It is of some interest here with regard to pronunciation that the = conjunction than was often indistinguishable from = then in 17th Century England and is still so in many = dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative adverb of the degre= e= clause while the second is either a relative adverb of a temporal clause = (subordinate clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate clause). = = The second form is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. Thu= s= we have three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as = that, but here they are adverbs.

Hope this helps.

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM = >>>

Bruce,

Interesting arguments! = Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and also reports and describes the = use of "as" to introduce a relative clause, as in cases like
"not as man= y= as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants to".

You're= = right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the question of = whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. But consider th= e= alternative. If my arguments don't apply to relative "that", then we= = have THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that introduces noun clauses, = the demonstrative pronoun, and the relative "that". But the relative = "that" behaves morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like the = demonstrative, so there's little reason for positing the third. =

"Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"=3F I like = that. Just think the potential it gives us as a model for naming = lexical categories!

Herb

Herb,

Perhaps your argument = could be made stronger if you mentioned that certain
adverb clauses are = also relative, without having to be connected with a pronoun.
In this = case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so maybe
it= = doesn't help after all.

John is taller than George.
John is talle= r= than George is.
John is taller than George is tall.

The = connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing = John's
height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing= = that the -er is
referring to, the degree of John's tallness.

Your= = argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it = isn't
the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first = three points of
the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a = "pronominalized = subordinating
conjunction."

Bruce

>>> = [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>>

Craig,

I = don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much= = is
pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The = morpho-syntactic evidence is
overwhelming that relative "that" is not a = pronoun and is a subordinating
conjunction, that there is, in fact, no = difference between the "thats" in

I know that it's = raining.

and

The rain that's falling now will flood the = =66ields.

They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in = relative clauses is a pronoun
is a claim grounded in a school grammar = tradition that is seriously flawed in
many ways, this being one of = them. When you say "that is a pronoun in some
camps and a = complementizer in others when it functions within a relative
clause," yo= u= beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no = =66unction
within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is= = not subject, object, OP, or
anything else. Those relationships are= = marked by the absence of a noun phrase
in the appropriate position, not = by "that".

Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that = they are both embedded
sentences. They differ in that content = clauses are complements of verbs, nouns,
or adjectives and that relative= = clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is the
modifier relationship = that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by relative
clauses but not = by content clauses.

I don't think the problem of appositives has = anything to do with the analysis
of "that". Rather, it has to do = with the ill-defined nature of the term
appositive. Here are some = examples.

1. My brother Bill ...
2. Bill's statement that he was = in Chicago at the time ...
3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ...
4. = Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ...
5. Bill's party, scheduled for = last night, ...
6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago = ...
etc.

At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and = I'm not entirely sure
that it's a function. I think rather that = it's a traditional term used to
describe a disparate variety of = structures all of which occur after nouns. It
has some usefulness = if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives doesn't
bother me = much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're = different
structures, complements to their head nouns rather than = modifiers, and calling
them appositives just confuses matters.

Bu= t= this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get = us.

Herb
Herb,
    I know we have gone back and= = =66orth on this one before, and I'm still not
convinced, but I think it = may be important to clarify that there seems to be
agreement that there = is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its
various forms, and = which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses), but
that is a = pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it = =66unctions
within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a = complementizer in noun
clauses precisely because it clearly has no role = within the noun clause.
    I'm wondering whether you see= = any difference between a content clause
structure and relative clause = structure. (Are these the same structures, but
differing in context by = =66unction=3F) The argument for these as appositional seems
to hinge, at= = least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. Is the
notio= n= of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding = of
the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it=3F Should we = discard the
category=3F

Craig

To join or leave this = LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

-------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------
This= message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for = the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is = addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------

To= join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this= = LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__Part24075A90.0__=-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:27:47 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bruce, I'm not sure yet that a three-way distinction works. The demonstrative = we agree on. Here are the differences you outline between 2 and 3: 2 has only one morphological manifestation, occurs at the beginning of a = content clause which may include appositives. 3 occurs at the beginning of an adjective clause, always restrictive, = conjunction may be omitted Here are my problems. 3 also has only one morphological manifestation, = so 2 and 3 are alike in that. 2 may be omitted, as in "I know it's = late," so they're alike in that. Appositives (2) may start with "that". = Huddleston&Pullum (p. 1052) note that, in what they call "supplementary = relatives", their term for non-restrictives, "that" is allowed, as in February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year = prolonged the bitter weather. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = insticnts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. 2 and 3 are thus alike in appositives may start with "that". That fact that one kind of that-clause identifies and another classifies = is not a function of the "that" but of distinction between complement = and modifier, which is why I'm uncomfortable with noun clauses after = verbs, nouns, and adjectives as appositives. They're complements, not = modifiers, and appositives are modifiers. Your claim that "(3)is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be = omitted" begs the question. It assumes that (3) is a pronoun, but there = is no evidence to support this claim. That-relatives in English, like = relatives in a lot of languages, involve deletion of the embedded = coreferent. In some complex cases a resumptive pronoun shows up, = although English typically doesn't like resumptives. But consider=20 Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote *0/it. Deletion would result in an island constraint violation. The = resumptive, while inelegant, makes the sentence grammatical. The fact = that a pronoun can appear in its in situ position is pretty strong = evidence that "that" isn't the pronoun. The that of a that-relative is identical to the that of a noun clause. = It's deletable, it's morphologically invariant, and it doesn't occur in = places where a pronoun can, like after a preposition. 2 and 3 are = indistinguishable. Herb =20 Herb, Maybe Occam (Ockham) would object, but I don't have a problem with three "that"s. 1) The demonstrative. This appears before nouns. It also has a = pronoun form for use without the noun. There are four distinct morphological = instances of the demonstrative: this, these, that, those. 2) The conjunction for a noun clause. This is the variety of noun = clause often called a content clause. There is only one morphological = manifestation. The noun clause may appear in virtually all the functions of a noun. = The appositive (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion. 3) The conjunction for an adjective clause. This is the variety of = adjective clause used to identify rather than describe or classify. It is always restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in this kind of = clause. The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The idea of my last post is = that you could argue that the conjunction of the noun clause (2) can be seen as = being used as a pronoun as the connective for the adjective clause (3). The morphology of (2) and (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: = (2) is independent of the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an = intergral part, yet as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in its = clause as a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent clause formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the stretch that one = might be justified in calling (3) a pronominalized version of (2). It is of some interest here with regard to pronunciation that the = conjunction than was often indistinguishable from then in 17th Century England and = is still so in many dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative = adverb of the degree clause while the second is either a relative adverb of a = temporal clause (subordinate clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate = clause). The second form is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. Thus = we have three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as that, = but here they are adverbs. Hope this helps. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM >>> Bruce, Interesting arguments! Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and also reports and describes the use of "as" to introduce a relative clause, as = in cases like "not as many as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants = to". You're right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the = question of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. But consider = the alternative. If my arguments don't apply to relative "that", then we = have THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that introduces noun clauses, = the demonstrative pronoun, and the relative "that". But the relative "that" = behaves morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like the demonstrative, = so there's little reason for positing the third. "Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"? I like that. Just think = the potential it gives us as a model for naming lexical categories! Herb Herb, Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that = certain adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with a pronoun. In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so = maybe it doesn't help after all. John is taller than George. John is taller than George is. John is taller than George is tall. The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing John's height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing that the = -er is referring to, the degree of John's tallness. Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it = isn't the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first three = points of the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a "pronominalized = subordinating conjunction." Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>> Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much = is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic = evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a = subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" = in I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously = flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in = some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no = function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, = OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun = phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of = verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is = the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by = relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the = analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely = sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used = to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after = nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives = doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and = calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still = not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems = to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with = its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival = clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer = in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content = clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, = but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as = appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. = Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the = misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard = the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:44:43 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, I don't think any of this belongs in an undergrad grammar class, = although in mine I do treat "that" as a conjunction and have a handout = that lays it out nicely. But here are the problems with your position: That in relatives is not only not a demonstrative pronoun (I wasn't = arguing that), it's not a pronoun at all. The deletion of that is a single rule, not two. Since the coreferential = NP in the relative clause deletes under identity with the head NP, it = deletes in all positions, including subject. This is true with = wh-relatives as well, by the way. The fact that we can't say "Here are = the fries which/that a hamburger and 0 were sitting on the counter" = indicates that there is deletion in subject position, but this deletion = is blocked by a coordinate structure, what John Ross called the = Coordinate Structure Constraint. There is a perceptual constraint on = the deletion of that when the subject of the RC has been deleted under = coreference, and that is that for most speakers the verb of the RC then = becomes the main verb and the rest of the sentence doesn't parse. = However, for many speakers, "This is the guy 0 met me at the airport" is = grammatical. The constraints governing that-deletion are subtle and = complex, but they're laid out in some detail in Bolinger's _That's that_ = and in Huddleston&Pullum. We have a long grammatical tradition of in which relative that is = treated as a pronoun, but it's not a unanimous tradition, and the best = of traditional grammarians, like Jespersen, have presented strong cases = for rejecting the position. Herb Herb Herb, When I mentioned that which and who are pronouns, I was just trying = to clarify the discussion a bit for anyone who wasn't around the last = time. It was an attempt to reaffirm agreements. I'm still getting a little stuck not seeing content clauses and = relative clauses as having slightly different structures and slightly = different deletion rules. Here's my current attempt to muddle through. = (In passing,. I'd like to say I do see three forms of "that" at work. = That in a relative clause is certainly not the demonstrative pronoun. I = was never trying to argue for that.) For a content clause, deletion is possible if the clause follows the = main verb, quite often a mental process verb, in traditional direct = object slot, and that is, as I see it, because the main clause verb is = already explicit. I believe that she loves me. I believe she loves me. = Both are very clear and highly grammatical. And I can make the same = clause subject. That she loves me is believable. In this case, though, = deletion isn't acceptable. I can't say She loves me is believable. In = this case, I thank that is because loves seems to be the main verb, but = turns out not to be, and the language requires or expects us to make = that explicit ahead of time. In other words, we need the that to render = the clause explicitly subordinate. It is clearly not a pronoun in any = way, shape or form because it has no grammatical role within the clause = itself. The that is also required if the clause shows up as a complement = to a head noun. My belief that she loves me.... We can't say My belief = she loves me is wrong. The that is required to subordinate or = complementize the clause. It's not a pronoun, again, because it has no = role within the clause. Here, I think, we are in deep harmony. For relative clauses, though, we have a slightly different deletion = process. I can say everything that she touches or everything she = touches, and the deletion doesn't give us problems. I can say = Everything that touches her touches me, but not everything touches her = touches me. The only way to explain that is to say that the clause = seems to require an explicit subject, not at all an issue with content = clauses because the "that" never remotely resembles a subject. (Without = going into detail, the rule works well with which and whom as well. = There's no deletion when they act as subject.) If that is subordinator = or complementizer in these clauses as well, then I am forced to say that = we need a complementizer to fill the subject slot because relative = clauses won't allow us to leave that slot empty. The reason many of us = are balking at this (I don't think it's just the bad habits of the old = grammar) is that the that looks and feels like a pronoun when it does. = Unlike the that in a content clause, it seems to be filling a = grammatical role. =20 We need to say that relative clauses cannot delete their pronoun or = complementizer when there is no [other] subject explicitly rendered. = It's a problem that simply never arises with content clauses. If the = that acts in place of the subject and is not a pronoun, then we have to = say there are relative clauses in which a subject never appears. This = is a different frame of reference than I am used to. (And I have to = admit that I am warming up to it a bit as I go.) The other problem, of = course, is in deciding how much of this would just be a distraction in = an undergrad grammar course. That is certainly different in some ways = and similar in some ways to the (other?) relative pronouns. The big = question is if it's sufficiently different to call it something else. = If not, then we certainly need to assert that relative that and = demonstrative that are not the same. To me, content clause that and = relative clause that differ as well, at least in terms of deletion. In = some way that never happens with content clauses, it takes on the look = and feel of a pronoun. I hope all this makes sense. This time through, I think we are more = elegant in the disagreement. (I can't think of anyone I would rather = engage in this way; I suspect one way or another to learn from it.) Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:23:25 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__Part33104DED.0__=" --=__Part33104DED.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herb, Thank you for your patience in helping me out. Your points are well taken. I'm still a little uncomfortable about melding (2) and (3). The nature of the "pronoun" of (3) seems to turn on the restrictive/non-restrictive opposition. The two examples of non-restrictive clauses are problematic for me and may deserve a more careful analysis. Let me work this out. February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. In this sentence the name of the month is proper, if it is referring to the one month of the year with that name. When the author brings into consideration the other years, the noun becomes common. In the dependent clause the noun is common. In the main clause it is proper. The proper noun being fully defined in the main clause cannot be identified better by adding an adjective clause. So the clause is indeed non-restrictive by the normal definition of modification. However, the dependent clause is complementing the definiteness of the proper noun of the main clause. This is the same function that the content clause has as an "appositive." So they have used the term "supplementary relative" for a complement. I still think they are right when they call it "relative." I assume you differ there. It now seems to be a "relative-pro-article." She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. I think it is clear from a careful reading of this sentence that the author did not intend that the first person be understood as trying to stifle all of her son's instincts. The author is talking about some of her son's instincts, namely those that the first person had tried to stifle. Paratactic paraphrase may help to display this. First the non-restrictive interpretation: She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts I had tried--and failed-to stifle these instincts. Now the restrictive interpretation: I had tried--and failed-to stifle (certain ones of) her son's instincts. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of these instincts. My impression is that the difficulty arises when the strict interpretation of the noun phrase changes between the main clause and the dependent clause. Here it seems to be the specificity of the instincts that needs the complementation. Another vote for the "relative-pro-article." I hope these arguments don't go around in a circle again. I am convinced of the relative nature of that in adjective clauses, but its antecedent appears to be the normal domain of an article, rather than the full noun phrase. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/11/2005 8:27:47 AM >>> Bruce, I'm not sure yet that a three-way distinction works. The demonstrative we agree on. Here are the differences you outline between 2 and 3: 2 has only one morphological manifestation, occurs at the beginning of a content clause which may include appositives. 3 occurs at the beginning of an adjective clause, always restrictive, conjunction may be omitted Here are my problems. 3 also has only one morphological manifestation, so 2 and 3 are alike in that. 2 may be omitted, as in "I know it's late," so they're alike in that. Appositives (2) may start with "that". Huddleston&Pullum (p. 1052) note that, in what they call "supplementary relatives", their term for non-restrictives, "that" is allowed, as in February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's insticnts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. 2 and 3 are thus alike in appositives may start with "that". That fact that one kind of that-clause identifies and another classifies is not a function of the "that" but of distinction between complement and modifier, which is why I'm uncomfortable with noun clauses after verbs, nouns, and adjectives as appositives. They're complements, not modifiers, and appositives are modifiers. Your claim that "(3)is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted" begs the question. It assumes that (3) is a pronoun, but there is no evidence to support this claim. That-relatives in English, like relatives in a lot of languages, involve deletion of the embedded coreferent. In some complex cases a resumptive pronoun shows up, although English typically doesn't like resumptives. But consider Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote *0/it. Deletion would result in an island constraint violation. The resumptive, while inelegant, makes the sentence grammatical. The fact that a pronoun can appear in its in situ position is pretty strong evidence that "that" isn't the pronoun. The that of a that-relative is identical to the that of a noun clause. It's deletable, it's morphologically invariant, and it doesn't occur in places where a pronoun can, like after a preposition. 2 and 3 are indistinguishable. Herb Herb, Maybe Occam (Ockham) would object, but I don't have a problem with three "that"s. 1) The demonstrative. This appears before nouns. It also has a pronoun form for use without the noun. There are four distinct morphological instances of the demonstrative: this, these, that, those. 2) The conjunction for a noun clause. This is the variety of noun clause often called a content clause. There is only one morphological manifestation. The noun clause may appear in virtually all the functions of a noun. The appositive (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion. 3) The conjunction for an adjective clause. This is the variety of adjective clause used to identify rather than describe or classify. It is always restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in this kind of clause. The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The idea of my last post is that you could argue that the conjunction of the noun clause (2) can be seen as being used as a pronoun as the connective for the adjective clause (3). The morphology of (2) and (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: (2) is independent of the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in its clause as a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent clause formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the stretch that one might be justified in calling (3) a pronominalized version of (2). It is of some interest here with regard to pronunciation that the conjunction than was often indistinguishable from then in 17th Century England and is still so in many dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative adverb of the degree clause while the second is either a relative adverb of a temporal clause (subordinate clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate clause). The second form is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. Thus we have three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as that, but here they are adverbs. Hope this helps. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM >>> Bruce, Interesting arguments! Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and also reports and describes the use of "as" to introduce a relative clause, as in cases like "not as many as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants to". You're right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the question of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. But consider the alternative. If my arguments don't apply to relative "that", then we have THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that introduces noun clauses, the demonstrative pronoun, and the relative "that". But the relative "that" behaves morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like the demonstrative, so there's little reason for positing the third. "Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"? I like that. Just think the potential it gives us as a model for naming lexical categories! Herb Herb, Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that certain adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with a pronoun. In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so maybe it doesn't help after all. John is taller than George. John is taller than George is. John is taller than George is tall. The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing John's height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing that the -er is referring to, the degree of John's tallness. Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it isn't the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first three points of the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a "pronominalized subordinating conjunction." Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>> Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" in I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__Part33104DED.0__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Herb,

Thank you for your patience in helping me out. Your points are = well taken. I'm still a little uncomfortable about melding (2) and = (3). The nature of the "pronoun" of (3) seems to turn on the = restrictive/non-restrictive opposition. The two examples of = non-restrictive clauses are problematic for me and may deserve a more = careful analysis. Let me work this out.

February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year = prolonged the bitter weather.

In this sentence the name of the month is proper, if it is referring t= o= the one month of the year with that name. When the author brings int= o= consideration the other years, the noun becomes common.  In the = dependent clause the noun is common.

In the main clause it is proper. The proper noun being fully = defined in the main clause cannot be identified better by adding an = adjective clause. So the clause is indeed non-restrictive by the = normal definition of modification. However, the dependent clause is = complementing the definiteness of the proper noun of the main = clause. This is the same function that the content clause has as an = "appositive." So they have used the term "supplementary = relative" for a complement. I still think they are right when = they call it "relative." I assume you differ there. It now seem= s= to be a "relative-pro-article."

She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = instincts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle.

I think it is clear from a careful reading of this sentence that the = author did not intend that the first person be understood as trying to = stifle all of her son's instincts.  The author is talking about = some of her son's instincts, namely those that the first person had = tried to stifle.  Paratactic paraphrase may help to display = this. First the non-restrictive interpretation:

She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = instincts

I had tried--and failed-to stifle these instincts.

Now the restrictive interpretation:

I had tried--and failed-to stifle (certain ones of) her son's = instincts.

She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of = these instincts.

My impression is that the difficulty arises when the strict = interpretation of the noun phrase changes between the main clause and the = dependent clause. Here it seems to be the specificity of the instinct= s= that needs the complementation. Another vote for the = "relative-pro-article."

I hope these arguments don't go around in a circle again. I= = am convinced of the relative nature of that in adjective = clauses, but its antecedent appears to be the normal domain of an article, = rather than the full noun phrase.

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/11/2005 8:27:47 AM = >>>

Bruce,

I'm not sure yet that a = three-way distinction works. The demonstrative we agree on. Her= e= are the differences you outline between 2 and 3:

2 has only one = morphological manifestation, occurs at the beginning of a content clause = which may include appositives.

3 occurs at the beginning of an = adjective clause, always restrictive, conjunction may be omitted

Her= e= are my problems. 3 also has only one morphological manifestation, so= = 2 and 3 are alike in that. 2 may be omitted, as in "I know it's late,= "= so they're alike in that. Appositives (2) may start with = "that". Huddleston&Pullum (p. 1052) note that, in what they call = "supplementary relatives", their term for non-restrictives, "that" is = allowed, as in

February, that in other years held intimations of = spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather.

She had long been = accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's insticnts, that I had = tried--and failed-to stifle.

2 and 3 are thus alike in appositives = may start with "that".

That fact that one kind of that-clause = identifies and another classifies is not a function of the "that" but of = distinction between complement and modifier, which is why I'm uncomfortable= = with noun clauses after verbs, nouns, and adjectives as appositives. = They're complements, not modifiers, and appositives are = modifiers.

Your claim that "(3)is typically an intergral part, yet a= s= object can be omitted" begs the question. It assumes that (3) is a = pronoun, but there is no evidence to support this claim. = That-relatives in English, like relatives in a lot of languages, involve = deletion of the embedded coreferent. In some complex cases a = resumptive pronoun shows up, although English typically doesn't like = resumptives. But consider

Here's a book that I know the guy = who wrote *0/it.

Deletion would result in an island constraint = violation. The resumptive, while inelegant, makes the sentence = grammatical. The fact that a pronoun can appear in its in situ = position is pretty strong evidence that "that" isn't the pronoun.
The = that of a that-relative is identical to the that of a noun clause. = It's deletable, it's morphologically invariant, and it doesn't occur in = places where a pronoun can, like after a preposition. 2 and 3 are = indistinguishable.

Herb

Herb,

Maybe Occam (Ockham) = would object, but I don't have a problem with = three
"that"s.

1) The demonstrative. This appears = before nouns. It also has a pronoun form
for use without the noun.= = There are four distinct morphological instances of the
demonstrative: = this, these, that, those.

2) The conjunction for a noun = clause. This is the variety of noun clause
often called a content = clause. There is only one morphological manifestation.
The noun clause = may appear in virtually all the functions of a noun. The
appositiv= e= (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion.

3) The= = conjunction for an adjective clause. This is the variety of = adjective
clause used to identify rather than describe or classify. = ;= It is always
restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in= = this kind of clause.

The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. = The idea of my last post is that you
could argue that the conjunction of= = the noun clause (2) can be seen as being
used as a pronoun as the = connective for the adjective clause (3). The
morphology of (2) and= = (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: (2) is
independent of = the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an intergral
part, ye= t= as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in its clause as
= a= part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent = clause
formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the = stretch that one might be
justified in calling (3) a pronominalized = version of (2).

It is of some interest here with regard to = pronunciation that the conjunction
than was often indistinguishable from= = then in 17th Century England and is
still so in many dialects. As = conjunctives the first is a relative adverb of
the degree clause while = the second is either a relative adverb of a temporal
clause (subordinate= = clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate clause).
The second form= = is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. Thus we = have
three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as = that, but here
they are adverbs.

Hope this = helps.

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 = PM >>>

Bruce,

Interesting arguments! Jespersen= = treats comparatives similarly and also
reports and describes the use of = "as" to introduce a relative clause, as in
cases like
"not as many as= = I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants to".

You're = right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the = question
of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. = But consider the
alternative. If my arguments don't apply to = relative "that", then we have
THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction = that introduces noun clauses, the
demonstrative pronoun, and the relativ= e= "that". But the relative "that" behaves
morpho-syntactically like= = the conjunction, not like the demonstrative, so
there's little reason fo= r= positing the third.

"Pronominalizing subordinating = conjunction"=3F I like that. Just think the
potential it = gives us as a model for naming lexical = categories!

Herb

Herb,

Perhaps your argument could be = made stronger if you mentioned that certain
adverb clauses are also = relative, without having to be connected with a
pronoun.
In this case= ,= however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so maybe
it = doesn't help after all.

John is taller than George.
John is talle= r= than George is.
John is taller than George is tall.

The = connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, = comparing
John's
height to it. It is relative by referring to = the same thing that the -er is
referring to, the degree of John's = tallness.

Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to= = show that it isn't
the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in = the first three points of
the previous post. Perhaps we can view i= t= as a "pronominalized = subordinating
conjunction."

Bruce

>>> = [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>>

Craig,

I = don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much= = is
pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The = morpho-syntactic evidence is
overwhelming that relative "that" is not a = pronoun and is a subordinating
conjunction, that there is, in fact, no = difference between the "thats" in

I know that it's = raining.

and

The rain that's falling now will flood the = =66ields.

They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in = relative clauses is a
pronoun
is a claim grounded in a school grammar= = tradition that is seriously flawed in
many ways, this being one of = them. When you say "that is a pronoun in some
camps and a = complementizer in others when it functions within a relative
clause," yo= u= beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no = =66unction
within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is= = not subject, object, OP,
or
anything else. Those relationships = are marked by the absence of a noun phrase
in the appropriate position, = not by "that".

Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in = that they are both
embedded
sentences. They differ in that = content clauses are complements of verbs,
nouns,
or adjectives and = that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is the
modifier = relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by = relative
clauses but not by content clauses.

I don't think the = problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis
of = "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the = term
appositive. Here are some examples.

1. My brother Bill= = ...
2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ...
3. = Bill, who lives in Chicago, ...
4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, = ...
5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ...
6. The idea that = Bill lives in Chicago ...
etc.

At best, appositive is a function,= = not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure
that it's a function. I= = think rather that it's a traditional term used to
describe a disparate = variety of structures all of which occur after nouns. It
has some = usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives = doesn't
bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they'r= e= different
structures, complements to their head nouns rather than = modifiers, and calling
them appositives just confuses matters.

Bu= t= this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get = us.

Herb
Herb,
    I know we have gone back and= = =66orth on this one before, and I'm still not
convinced, but I think it = may be important to clarify that there seems to be
agreement that there = is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its
various forms, and = which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses),
but
that is= = a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when = it
functions
within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a = complementizer in noun
clauses precisely because it clearly has no role = within the noun clause.
    I'm wondering whether you see= = any difference between a content clause
structure and relative clause = structure. (Are these the same structures, but
differing in context by = =66unction=3F) The argument for these as appositional
seems
to hinge,= = at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. = Is
the
notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the = misunderstanding
of
the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see = it=3F Should we discard the
category=3F

Craig

To join or = leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

-------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------
This= message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for = the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is = addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------

To= join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this= = LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

-------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------
This= message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for = the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is = addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------

To= join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this= = LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__Part33104DED.0__=-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:48:16 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Katz, Seth" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 VGFobmtzLCBIZXJiLCBmb3IgeW91ciBzdWNjaW5jdCBhbmQgYXJ0aWN1bGF0ZSByZXNwb25zZS4N CiANClllcywgSSBrbm93IEplc3BlcnNlbiAobm90IHBlcnNvbmFsbHksIG9mIGNvdXJzZSksIGFu ZCB0aGUgd29uZGVyZnVsIHJpY2huZXNzIG9mIGhpcyB3b3JrLg0KIA0KT25lIHBvaW50IEkgd2Fu dCB0byB0YWtlIGlzc3VlIHdpdGgtLUkgbmVlZCB0byB0aHJvdyB0aGUgInF1ZXN0aW9uIGJlZ2dp bmciIGNoYXJnZSBiYWNrYXRjaGE6ICB5b3Ugc2F5LA0KDQoJCTMuICBUaGlzIHNlcmlvdXNseSBi ZWdzIHRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbi4gIElmICJ0aGF0IiBpcyBhIGNvbmp1bmN0aW9uLCB3ZSBoYXZlIGFu IGV4Y2VsbGVudCBhbmQgbmF0dXJhbCBleHBsYW5hdGlvbiBmb3Igd2h5IGl0IGRvZXNuJ3QgaGF2 ZSBhIGdlbml0aXZlLiAgQ29uanVuY3Rpb25zIGRvbid0LiAgTm91bnMgYW5kIHByb25vdW5zIGRv LiAgSWYgInRoYXQiIGlzIGEgcHJvbm91biwgdGhlbiB3ZSBoYXZlIHRvIGhhdmUgYW4gZXhwbGFu YXRpb24gZm9yIHdoeSBpdCBkb2Vzbid0IGhhdmUgYSBnZW5pdGl2ZS4gIFdlIGNhbid0IGFyZ3Vl IHRoYXQgaXQncyBiZWNhdXNlICJ0aGF0IiBhcyBhIGRlbW9uc3RyYXRpdmUgZGV0ZXJtaW5lciBk b2Vzbid0IGVpdGhlciBiZWNhdXNlIHN5bnRhY3RpY2FsbHkgYSBnZW5pdGl2ZSBOUCBmaWxscyB0 aGUgZGV0ZXJtaW5lciBzbG90LiAgQ2hlY2sgYW55IG9mIHRoZSBtYWpvciByZWZlcmVuY2UgZ3Jh bW1hcnMgb24gdGhhdC4NCg0KUGVyaGFwcyBJJ20gYmVpbmcgZGVuc2UsIGJ1dCBpdCBzZWVtcyB0 byBtZSB0aGF0IHlvdSdyZSBiZWdnaW5nIHRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBhcyB3ZWxsLCBzaW5jZSBwcm9u b3VuICJ0aGF0IiBoYXMgbm8gaW5mbGVjdGVkIHBvc3Nlc3NpdmUgZm9ybSBlaXRoZXI7IG5laXRo ZXIgZG8gYW55IG9mIHRoZSBkZW1vbnN0cmF0aXZlIHByb25vdW5zLiAgTmVpdGhlciBkb2VzIFJl bGF0aXZlIHByb25vdW4gIndoaWNoLiIgIFdoYXQgZG8gd2UgZG8gd2l0aCB0aGF0PyAgT3IgYW0g SSBtaXNzaW5nIHNvbWV0aGluZyBoZXJlPw0KIA0KQXMgSSdtIHdvbnQgdG8gdGVsbCBteSBzdHVk ZW50czogd2UgY2FuIHJlZ2FyZCAidGhhdCIgYXMgYSBnaWZ0IG9yIGFuIGV2aWwsIGZvciBpdCBk b2VzIHNvIG1hbnkgdGhpbmdzLg0KIA0KVGhhbmtzLS0NClNldGgNCiANCg0KCS0tLS0tT3JpZ2lu YWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tIA0KCUZyb206IEFzc2VtYmx5IGZvciB0aGUgVGVhY2hpbmcgb2YgRW5n bGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyIG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBTdGFobGtlLCBIZXJiZXJ0IEYuVy4gDQoJU2VudDog VGh1IDMvMTAvMjAwNSA4OjA5IFBNIA0KCVRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUgDQoJ Q2M6IA0KCVN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBRdWVzdGlvbiByZSAiVGhhdCIgdnMuICJXaG8iDQoJDQoJDQoN CglTZXRoLA0KCQ0KCUEgZ29vZCBzZXQgb2YgcXVlc3Rpb25zLg0KCQ0KCQ0KCT5JJ20gbm90IGdl dHRpbmcgaG93IHRoYXQgaW4gYW4gYWRqZWN0aXZlIGNsYXVzZS0tYSBjbGF1c2UgbW9kaWZ5aW5n IGEgbm91bi0taXMgPm5vdCBhIHJlbGF0aXZlIHByb25vdW4sIGJ1dCBpcyBhIHN1Ym9yZGluYXRp bmcgY29uanVuY3Rpb24uICBJJ20gbm90IHN1cmUgd2hhdCA+eW91IG1lYW4gYnkgeW91ciB1c2Ug b2YgdGhlIHRlcm0gInN1Ym9yZGluYXRpbmcgY29uanVuY3Rpb24iLCB3aGljaCBJID51bmRlcnN0 YW5kIGFzIHJlZmVycmluZyB0byBhIHdvcmQgdGhhdCBtYXJrcyBhbiBhZHZlcmIgY2xhdXNlIChl LmcuIGJlY2F1c2UpLiA+RE8geW91IHNpbXBseSBtZWFuIHRoYXQgInRoYXQiIHdpdGggYSBjbGF1 c2UgZm9sbG93aW5nIGEgbm91biwgYSBjbGF1c2UgdGhhdCA+c2VlbXMgdG8gbW9kaWZ5IHRoZSBu b3VuLCBzaW1wbHkgbWFya3MgdGhlIGRlcGVuZGVudCBzdGF0dXMgb2YgdGhlIGNsYXVzZT8NCgkN Cgk+QWxzbywgeW91IHNheSB0aGF0DQoJPltzbmlwXQ0KCT5CdXQgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyB0aGUgcmVh c29ucyB3aHkgInRoYXQiIHNpbXBseSBpcyBub3QgYSBwcm9ub3VuLCBhZ2FpbiwgY29uc2lkZXIg PnRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmc6DQoJDQoJPlJlbCAidGhhdCIgaXMgYWx3YXlzIHVuc3RyZXNzZWQuICBQ cm9ub21pbmFsICJ0aGF0IiBpcyBzdHJlc3NlZC4NCgk+UmVsICJ0aGF0IiBuZXZlciBleGhpYml0 cyB0aGUgcGx1cmFsIGZvcm0gInRob3NlIi4gIFByb25vbWluYWwgInRoYXQiIGRvZXMuDQoJPlJl bCAidGhhdCIgY2FuJ3QgdGFrZSBhIGdlbml0aXZlIHN1ZmZpeC4gIFByb25vbWluYWwgInRoYXQi IGNhbid0IGVpdGhlciwgYnV0ID53ZSBjYW4gZ2V0ICJ0aGF0IG9uZSdzIi4NCgk+UmVsICJ0aGF0 IiBjYW4ndCBvY2N1ciBhZnRlciBhIHByZXBvc2l0aW9uIGFzIGl0cyBvYmplY3QuICBQcm9ub21p bmFsICJ0aGF0IiA+Y2FuLg0KCQ0KCT5PSzogdGhlc2UgYXJlIGZlYXR1cmVzIG9mIHByb25vdW5z OyBidXQgb24gdGhlIGNvbnRyYXJ5LA0KCQ0KCT4xLiAgICAgQXJlbid0IHJlbGF0aXZlIHByb25v dW5zIGdlbmVyYWxseSB1bnN0cmVzc2VkIChvciBhcmUgbXkgZWFycyA+dW50dXRvcmVkKT8NCgk+ Mi4gICAgIFJlbGF0aXZlIHByb25vdW5zICJ3aG8iIGFuZCAid2hpY2giIGV4aGliaXQgbm8gaW5m bGVjdGVkIHBsdXJhbCA+Zm9ybS0tdGhvdWdoIHRoZXkgYXJlIHVzZWQgZm9yIHBsdXJhbCByZWZl cmVuY2U7IGFuZCBSZWwgInRoYXQiIHNlZW1zIHRvIGRvIHNvID5hcyB3ZWxsICgiVGhlIGJvb2sv cyB0aGF0IEkgYm91Z2h0IikNCgk+My4gICAgIFllcywgUmVsICJ0aGF0IiBjYW4ndCB0YWtlIGEg Z2VuaXRpdmUgc3VmZml4OyBzbyB3ZSB1c2UgIndob3NlIiAoIlRoZSA+Ym9vayB0aGF0IHdhcyB0 b3JuIiB2cy4gIlRoZSBib29rIHdob3NlIGNvdmVyIHdhcyB0b3JuIikNCgk+NC4gICAgIEFuZCwg eWVzLCBSZWwgInRoYXQiIGNhbid0IGFwcGVhciBpbiB0aGUgb2JqZWN0aXZlIGNhc2UgcG9zaXRp b25zOyBzbyB3ZSA+dXNlICJ3aGljaCIgaW5zdGVhZDoNCgkNCgk+KlRoZSBwbGF5IGFib3V0IHRo YXQgd2UgaGFkIGhlYXJkDQoJPlRoZSBwbGF5IGFib3V0IHdoaWNoIHdlIGhhZCBoZWFyZC4NCgkN CglMZXQgbWUgdGFrZSB0aGVzZSBvbmUgYXQgYSB0aW1lLg0KCQ0KCTEuICBZZXMsIHdoLXByb25v dW5zIGFyZSB1bnN0cmVzc2VkIGluIHJlbGF0aXZlIGNsYXVzZXMuICBUaGV5IGFyZW4ndCB0eXBp Y2FsbHkgaW4gcXVlc3Rpb25zLCBidXQgdGhleSBhcmUgaW4gUkNzLiAgSG93ZXZlciwgdGhlIGNv bnRyYXN0IEkgd2FzIG1ha2luZyB3YXMgYmV0d2VlbiAidGhhdCIgYXMgYSBjb25qdW5jdGlvbiBh bmQgInRoYXQiIGFzIGEgcHJvbm91bi4gIFRoZSBmb3JtZXIgaXMgbm90IHN0cmVzc2VkIGFuZCB0 aGUgbGF0dGVyIGlzLg0KCQ0KCTIuICBZZXMsIGFnYWluLiAgVGhlIHdoLXdvcmRzIGxvc3QgdGhl aXIgcGx1cmFscyBhbmQgY2FzZSBmb3JtcywgZXhjZXB0IGZvciAid2hvc2UiIGFuZCAid2hvbSwi IGluIE1pZGRsZSBFbmdsaXNoLiAgQnV0IHRoZSBwb2ludCBoZXJlIGlzIHRoYXQgaWYgInRoYXQi IGlzIGEgcHJvbm91biwgdGhlbiBpdCBoYXMgYSBwbHVyYWwgZm9ybSAidGhvc2UiLiAgTm9uZSBv ZiB0aGUgd2gtd29yZHMgZG9lcyB1bmRlciBhbnkgY2lyY3Vtc3RhbmNlcy4gIFdlIHNheSAidGhv c2UgYm9va3MiLCBidXQgbm90ICJ0aGUgYm9va3MgdGhvc2UgSSBib3VnaHQiLiAgV2UgaGF2ZSB0 byB1c2UgInRoYXQiIGluIHRoZSBsYXR0ZXIgY2FzZS4gIFRoaXMgaXMgYSBzZXJpb3VzIHByb2Js ZW0gZm9yIGNhbGxpbmcgcmVsYXRpdmUgInRoYXQiIGEgcHJvbm91bi4NCgkNCgkzLiAgVGhpcyBz ZXJpb3VzbHkgYmVncyB0aGUgcXVlc3Rpb24uICBJZiAidGhhdCIgaXMgYSBjb25qdW5jdGlvbiwg d2UgaGF2ZSBhbiBleGNlbGxlbnQgYW5kIG5hdHVyYWwgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24gZm9yIHdoeSBpdCBk b2Vzbid0IGhhdmUgYSBnZW5pdGl2ZS4gIENvbmp1bmN0aW9ucyBkb24ndC4gIE5vdW5zIGFuZCBw cm9ub3VucyBkby4gIElmICJ0aGF0IiBpcyBhIHByb25vdW4sIHRoZW4gd2UgaGF2ZSB0byBoYXZl IGFuIGV4cGxhbmF0aW9uIGZvciB3aHkgaXQgZG9lc24ndCBoYXZlIGEgZ2VuaXRpdmUuICBXZSBj YW4ndCBhcmd1ZSB0aGF0IGl0J3MgYmVjYXVzZSAidGhhdCIgYXMgYSBkZW1vbnN0cmF0aXZlIGRl dGVybWluZXIgZG9lc24ndCBlaXRoZXIgYmVjYXVzZSBzeW50YWN0aWNhbGx5IGEgZ2VuaXRpdmUg TlAgZmlsbHMgdGhlIGRldGVybWluZXIgc2xvdC4gIENoZWNrIGFueSBvZiB0aGUgbWFqb3IgcmVm ZXJlbmNlIGdyYW1tYXJzIG9uIHRoYXQuDQoJDQoJNC4gIFRoaXMgYWxzbyBiZWdzIHRoZSBxdWVz dGlvbiwgYnV0IG15IGFyZ3VtZW50IHdhc24ndCB2ZXJ5IHN0cm9uZyBhbnl3YXksIHNpbmNlIHdl IGRvbid0IHR5cGljYWxseSBzYXkgIkkgc2F3IHdoaWNoIG9uIHRoZSB0YWJsZSIuDQoJDQoJPlNv LCBJIHN0aWxsIGRvbid0IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQuICBBbHRob3VnaCwgaGlzdG9yaWNhbGx5LCAidGhh dCIgd2FzIG5vdCBhID5SZWxhdGl2ZSBQcm9ub3VuLCBJIGRvbid0IHNlZSBob3cgaXQgZG9lc24n dCBiZWhhdmUgbGlrZSBvbmUgbm93LS1vciBlbm91Z2ggPmxpa2Ugb25lIHRoYXQgaXQgbWF0dGVy cy4gIFdoYXQgYXJlIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtcyB0aGF0IGFyZSBjcmVhdGVkIGJ5IGFuYWx5emluZyA+ aXQgYXMgc3VjaD8NCgkNCglJIHRoaW5rIEkndmUgaGFuZGxlZCBvYmplY3Rpb25zIDEtNC4gIElm IHNvLCB0aGUgYXBwZWFyYW5jZSB0aGF0ICJ0aGF0IiBiZWhhdmVzIGxpa2UgYSBwcm9ub3VuIGlz IHRoZSByZXN1bHQgb2YgYSBmYXVsdHkgYW5hbHlzaXMgb2YgaXRzIGJlaGF2aW9yIGFuZCBhIHJl amVjdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgbW9ycGhvLXN5bnRhY3RpYyBmYWN0cy4gIExldCBtZSBub3RlIGFnYWlu IHRoYXQgdGhpcyBhbmFseXNpcyBvZiAidGhhdCIgZG9lc24ndCBvcmlnaW5hdGUgd2l0aCBtZS4g IEkgZXhwYW5kZWQgb24gaXQgaW4gbXkgMTk3NiBMYW5ndWFnZSBhcnRpY2xlLCBidXQgdGhlIGJh c2ljIGNhc2UgaXMgbWFkZSBlbG9xdWVudGx5IGFuZCBpbiBncmVhdCBkZXRhaWwgYnkgT3R0byBK ZXNwZXJzZW4gaW4gaGlzIEEgTW9kZXJuIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBvbiBIaXN0b3JpY2FsIFBy aW5jaXBsZXMsIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgbW9yZSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgc3R1ZGllcyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIGdy YW1tYXIuDQoJDQoJVGhlIGxhc3QgdGltZSB3ZSBoYWQgdGhpcyBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9uIHRoZSBs aXN0IHRoZXJlIHdhcyBhbHNvIGdyZWF0IHJlc2lzdGFuY2UgdG8gdGhlIGNvbmp1bmN0aW9uIGFu YWx5c2lzLiAgTm8gb25lIHNlcmlvdXNseSBjaGFsbGVuZ2VkIHRoZSBtb3JwaG8tc3ludGFjdGlj IGZhY3RzLCBidXQgcGVvcGxlIHdhbnRlZCB0byBob2xkIG9uIHRvIHRoZSByZWxhdGl2ZSBwcm9u b3VuIGFuYWx5c2lzIGluIHRoZSBmYWNlIG9mIHRoZW0gYW5kIHByb3Bvc2VkIHBzeWNob2xpbmd1 aXN0aWMgZXhwZXJpbWVudHMgdGhhdCBjYW4ndCBiZSBwZXJmb3JtZWQgYW5kIGd1dCBmZWVsaW5n IGFzIHJlYXNvbnMgZm9yIGhvbGRpbmcgb24gdG8gaXQuICBUcmFkaXRpb24gaXMgdmVyeSBzdHJv bmcgaW4gZ3JhbW1hciwgYnV0IGluIHRoaXMgY2FzZSwgaXQncyB3cm9uZy4gIE5vdCB0aGF0IGFu eSBoaWdoIHNjaG9vbCBvciBjb2xsZWdlIHN0dWRlbnQgaXMgbGlrZWx5IHRvIGJlIGhhcm1lZCBi eSBwZXJwZXR1YXRpbmcgdGhpcyBmYXVsdHkgdHJhZGl0aW9uLg0KCQ0KCUhlcmINCgkNCgkNCgkg ICAgICAgIC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQoJICAgICAgICBGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJs eSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgU3RhaGxr ZSwgSGVyYmVydCBGLlcuDQoJICAgICAgICBTZW50OiBUaHUgMy8xMC8yMDA1IDEwOjE4IEFNDQoJ ICAgICAgICBUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQoJICAgICAgICBDYzoNCgkgICAg ICAgIFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBRdWVzdGlvbiByZSAiVGhhdCIgdnMuICJXaG8iDQoJICAgICAgIA0K CSAgICAgICANCgkNCgkgICAgICAgIERpY2ssDQoJICAgICAgIA0KCSAgICAgICAgVGhlcmUncyBu byBxdWVzdGlvbiB0aGF0IHRoYXQtcmVsYXRpdmVzIGFuZCB3aC1yZWxhdGl2ZXMgZnVuY3Rpb24g c2ltaWxhcmx5LCBhbHRob3VnaCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIHZlcnkgc3VidGxlIGFuZCBpbnNpZ2h0ZnVs IHN0dWR5IGJ5IER3aWdodCBCb2xpbmdlciB0aXRsZWQgX1RoYXQncyB0aGF0XyB0aGF0IGRpc2N1 c3NlcyB0aGUgbWVhbmluZyAidGhhdCIgbWF5IGJyaW5nIHRvIGEgcmVsYXRpdmUgY2xhdXNlLiAg SXQncyBiZWVuIHNvbWUgdGltZSBzaW5jZSBJIHJlYWQgaXQsIGJ1dCBJIHRoaW5rIEknbGwgaGF2 ZSBhbm90aGVyIGdvIGF0IGl0LiAgSXQgd2FzIGEgdmVyeSByZXdhcmRpbmcgcGllY2UuDQoJICAg ICAgIA0KCSAgICAgICAgVGhlIHNpbWlsYXJpdHkgb2YgZnVuY3Rpb24sIHRob3VnaCwgaXMgYSBz aW1pbGFyaXR5IGluIGNsYXVzZSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgYW5kIGZ1bmN0aW9uLiAgVGhlIGNsYXVzZXMg YXJlIG1vZGlmaWVycyBvZiBub3VucywgdGhhdCBpcywgaGF2ZSBoZWFkIG5vdW5zLiAgVGhleSBh cmUgYWxpa2UgaW4gdGhhdCB0aGV5IGhhdmUgc3lzdGVtYXRpYyBnYXBzLiAgV2hhdGV2ZXIgdGhl bWF0aWMgcm9sZSB0aGUgZW1iZWRkZWQgbm91biBoYWQgaW4gdGhlIFJDLCB0aGF0IHNwb3Qgc2hv d3MgYSBnYXAsIHdoZXRoZXIgdGhlIENPTVAgaXMgInRoYXQiIG9yIHdoLXguICBUaGUgb25seSBk aWZmZXJlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlbSBpcyB0aGF0IHRoYXQtcmVscyBoYXZlIG9ubHkgZGVsZXRp b24gYnV0IHdoLXJlbHMgaGF2ZSBkZWxldGlvbiBhbmQgbW92ZW1lbnQuICBUaGUgZmFjdCB0aGF0 IGV2ZW4gdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgcG9zaXRpb24gY2FuIGJlIGVtcHR5IGlzIGRlbW9uc3RyYXRlIGJ5 IGlzbGFuZCBjb25zdHJhaW50IHZpb2xhdGlvbnMgaW4gc2VudGVuY2VzIGxpa2UNCgkgICAgICAg DQoJICAgICAgICAqVGhlIGZyaWVzIHRoYXQgaGFtYnVyZ2VycyBhbmQgMCB3ZXJlIHNlcnZlZCB0 YXN0ZWQgZ3JlYXN5Lg0KCSAgICAgICANCgkgICAgICAgIFRoYXQgdGhlcmUgbWF5IGJlIHN1YnRs ZSBkaWZmZXJlbmNlcyBpbiBtZWFuaW5nIGJldHdlZW4gdGhhdC1yZWxzIGFuZCB3aC1yZWxzIGlz IGEgbmF0dXJhbCBjb25zZXF1ZW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgZmFjdCB0aGF0IGJvdGggc3RydWN0dXJlcyBl eGlzdC4gIFRoaXMgaGFwcGVucyB3aGVuIHR3byB3b3JkcyBhcmlzZSB0aGF0IGFyZSBuZWFyIHN5 bm9ueW1zLiAgVGhlIGxhbmd1YWdlIGZpbmRzIGEgd2F5IHRvIGRpZmZlcmVudGlhdGUgdGhlbS4g IFRoZXJlIHdpbGwgYmUgb3ZlcmxhcCwgYnV0IHRoZXkgd2lsbCBiZSBzbGlnaHRseSBkaXN0aW5j dC4gIEkndmUganVzdCBiZWVuIGRlYWxpbmcgd2l0aCB0aGlzIGluIGFub3RoZXIgYXJlYSBpbiBh IHBhcGVyIEknbSBqdXN0IGZpbmlzaGluZyB3aXRoIGEgY291cGxlIG9mIGdyYWQgc3R1ZGVudHMu ICBUaGUgc3VmZml4ZXMgLW5jZSBhbmQgLW5jeSBoYXZlIGEgY29tbW9uIHNvdXJjZSBpbiBMYXRl IExhdGluIHByZXNlbnQgcGFydGljaXBsZXMgbGlrZSAiZGlsaWdlbnRpYSIuICBJbiB0aGUgMm5k IGMuIHRoZSAvdC8gYXNzaWJpbGF0ZWQgcHJvZHVjaW5nIGEgcHJvbnVuY2lhdGlvbiByZWZsZWN0 ZWQgaW4gdGhlIC1uYy0gc3BlbGxpbmcgYW5kIGluIGEgd29yZCBsaWtlICJpbnRlbGxpZ2VudHNp YSIuICBCdXQgLW5jZSBhbmQgLW5jeSBub3cgZGlmZmVyIGluIHRoYXQgLW5jZSB0eXBpY2FsbHkg aGFzIHRoZSBtZWFuaW5nIG9mICJxdWFsaXR5IiBhbmQgLW5jeSBtYXkgYmUgZWl0aGVyICJxdWFs aXR5IiBvciAic3RhdGUiLiAgVGhlIG1lYW5pbmdzIG9mIGV0eW1vbG9naWNhbGx5IGlkZW50aWNh bCBzdWZmaXhlcyBhcmUgZGl2ZXJnaW5nIGJ1dCBhcmUgbm90IGNvbXBsZXRlbHkgZGlzdGluY3Qu ICBUaGUgc2FtZSBpcyB0cnVlIHdpdGggdGhhdC1yZWxzIGFuZCB3aC1yZWxzLg0KCSAgICAgICAN CgkgICAgICAgIEJ1dCB0byBhZGRyZXNzIHRoZSByZWFzb25zIHdoeSAidGhhdCIgc2ltcGx5IGlz IG5vdCBhIHByb25vdW4sIGFnYWluLCBjb25zaWRlciB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nOg0KCSAgICAgICAN CgkgICAgICAgIFJlbCAidGhhdCIgaXMgYWx3YXlzIHVuc3RyZXNzZWQuICBQcm9ub21pbmFsICJ0 aGF0IiBpcyBzdHJlc3NlZC4NCgkgICAgICAgIFJlbCAidGhhdCIgbmV2ZXIgZXhoaWJpdHMgdGhl IHBsdXJhbCBmb3JtICJ0aG9zZSIuICBQcm9ub21pbmFsICJ0aGF0IiBkb2VzLg0KCSAgICAgICAg UmVsICJ0aGF0IiBjYW4ndCB0YWtlIGEgZ2VuaXRpdmUgc3VmZml4LiAgUHJvbm9taW5hbCAidGhh dCIgY2FuJ3QgZWl0aGVyLCBidXQgd2UgY2FuIGdldCAidGhhdCBvbmUncyIuDQoJICAgICAgICBS ZWwgInRoYXQiIGNhbid0IG9jY3VyIGFmdGVyIGEgcHJlcG9zaXRpb24gYXMgaXRzIG9iamVjdC4g IFByb25vbWluYWwgInRoYXQiIGNhbi4NCgkgICAgICAgDQoJICAgICAgICBJbiBzaG9ydC4gIFJl bCAidGhhdCIgaGFzIG5vbmUgb2YgdGhlIHByb3BlcnRpZXMgb2YgYSBwcm9ub3VuLCBmb3IgdGhl IHNpbXBsZSByZWFzb24gdGhhdCBpdCdzIGlkZW50aWNhbCB0byBzdWJvcmRpbmF0aW5nIGNvbmp1 bmN0aW9uICJ0aGF0Ii4gIFRoaXMgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24gYWNjb3VudHMgbmVhdGx5IGZvciB0aGUg ZmFjdHMuICBUaGUgcHJvbm91biBhbmFseXNpcyBwcmVzZW50cyBhIHdob2xlIHNldCBvZiBwcm9i bGVtcyB0aGF0IGFyZSBhbm9tYWxvdXMuDQoJICAgICAgIA0KCSAgICAgICAgSGVyYg0KCSAgICAg ICANCgkgICAgICAgDQoJICAgICAgIA0KCSAgICAgICANCgkgICAgICAgDQoJICAgICAgIA0KCSAg ICAgICAgSGVyYiwNCgkgICAgICAgDQoJICAgICAgICBTdGlsbCwgaW50dWl0aXZlbHksIGl0J3Mg aGFyZCB0byBzZWUgaG93IGluIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgcGFpciwgd2UgYXJlDQoJICAgICAgICB1 c2luZyAid2hvIiBhbmQgInRoYXQiIGRpZmZlcmVudGx5Lg0KCSAgICAgICANCgkgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgVGhlIGJvc3Mgd2hvIGhpcmVkIG1lIC4uLg0KCSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBUaGUgYm9z cyB0aGF0IGhpcmVkIG1lIC4uLg0KCSAgICAgICANCgkgICAgICAgIFRoZXkgc3VyZSBmZWVsIGxp a2UgdGhleSdyZSBpbnRlcmNoYW5nZWFibGUgYW5kIHBlcmZvcm1pbmcgdGhlIHNhbWUNCgkgICAg ICAgIGZ1bmN0aW9uLiBNaWdodCBpdCBiZSB0aGF0IHRoZXkgZXZvbHZlZCBvbiBkaWZmZXJlbnQg aGlzdG9yaWNhbCBwYXRocw0KCSAgICAgICAgYnV0IHRoYXQgaW4gdGhlIG1lbnRhbCBncmFtbWFy IG9mIHRoZSB0eXBpY2FsIHByZXNlbnQtZGF5IHNwZWFrZXIgb2YNCgkgICAgICAgIEVuZ2xpc2gg aGF2ZSBjb21lIHRvIGJlIGlkZW50aWNhbCBpbiBmdW5jdGlvbj8gSWYgc28sIHdvdWxkbid0IHRo YXQNCgkgICAgICAgIGZ1bmN0aW9uIGJlIHRoYXQgb2YgcmVsYXRpdmUgcHJvbm91bj8NCgkgICAg ICAgDQoJICAgICAgICBEaWNrIFZlaXQNCgkgICAgICAgIF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f Xw0KCSAgICAgICANCgkgICAgICAgIFJpY2hhcmQgVmVpdA0KCSAgICAgICAgRGVwYXJ0bWVudCBv ZiBFbmdsaXNoLCBVTkNXDQoJICAgICAgICBXaWxtaW5ndG9uLCBOQyAyODQwMy01OTQ3DQoJICAg ICAgICA5MTAtOTYyLTMzMjQNCgkgICAgICAgDQoJICAgICAgIA0KCSAgICAgICAgLS0tLS1Pcmln aW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCgkgICAgICAgIEZyb206IEFzc2VtYmx5IGZvciB0aGUgVGVhY2hp bmcgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyDQoJICAgICAgICBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVP SElPLkVEVV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIFN0YWhsa2UsIEhlcmJlcnQgRi5XLg0KCSAgICAgICAgU2Vu dDogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAwOSwgMjAwNSA5OjQwIFBNDQoJICAgICAgICBUbzogQVRFR0BM SVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQoJICAgICAgICBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogUXVlc3Rpb24gcmUgIlRo YXQiIHZzLiAiV2hvIg0KCSAgICAgICANCgkgICAgICAgIEhlbGVuZSwNCgkgICAgICAgDQoJICAg ICAgICBUbyBleHBhbmQgb24gbXkgY3J5cHRpYyByZXNwb25zZSB0byBNYXJ0aGEsICJ0aGF0IiBp cyB0aGUgb2xkZXIgb2YgdGhlDQoJICAgICAgICB0d28gd2F5cyBvZiBzdGFydGluZyBhIHJlbGF0 aXZlIGNsYXVzZS4gICJXaG8iIGRvZXNuJ3QgYXBwZWFyIGluDQoJICAgICAgICByZWxhdGl2ZSBj bGF1c2VzIHVudGlsIHRoZSAxNXRoIGNlbnR1cnkuICAiVGhhdCIgYXBwZWFycyBzaXggY2VudHVy aWVzDQoJICAgICAgICBlYXJsaWVyLiAgQXQgdGhlIHRpbWUsICJ0aGF0Iiwgb3IgaXRzIGFuY2Vz dG9yLCB3YXMgbm90IGEgcHJvbm91bi4gIEl0DQoJICAgICAgICBhbHNvIGlzIG5vdCBhIHByb25v dW4gaW4gbW9kZXJuIEVuZ2xpc2guIEl0IGlzIHNpbXBseSBhIHN1Ym9yZGluYXRpbmcNCgkgICAg ICAgIGNvbmp1bmN0aW9uLiAgVGhpcyBhZGRyZXNzZXMgZGlyZWN0bHkgdGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9uIG9m IHdoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90DQoJICAgICAgICAidGhhdCIgY2FuIHJlZmVyIHRvIGh1bWFucy4gIEl0 J3MgYSBjb25qdW5jdGlvbi4gIENvbmp1bmN0aW9ucyBkb24ndA0KCSAgICAgICAgcmVmZXIgdG8g YW55dGhpbmcuICBVc2luZyAidGhhdCIgaW4gc29tZXRoaW5nIGxpa2UgIlRoZSBtYW4gdGhhdCBt ZXQgbWUNCgkgICAgICAgIGF0IHRoZSBhaXJwb3J0IiBpcyBmaW5lIGJlY2F1c2UgInRoYXQiIGlz IGEgc3Vib3JkaW5hdGluZyBjb25qdW5jdGlvbg0KCSAgICAgICAgYW5kIGRvZXNuJ3QgcmVwbGFj ZSB0aGUgc3ViamVjdCBvciBzdGFuZCBmb3IgdGhlIHN1YmplY3Qgb3IgcmVmZXIgdG8NCgkgICAg ICAgICJ0aGUgbWFuIiBiZWNhdXNlIG9ubHkgcHJvbm91bnMgcmVmZXIgYW5kIGl0J3Mgbm90IGEg cHJvbm91bi4NCgkgICAgICAgDQoJICAgICAgICBUaGUgcnVsZSB0aGF0ICJ0aGF0IiBjYW4ndCBy ZWZlciB0byBodW1hbnMgaXMgYSBzdHlsaXN0aWMgcHJlZmVyZW5jZQ0KCSAgICAgICAgYmFzZWQg b24gYSBmYXVsdHkgZ3JhbW1hdGljYWwgYW5hbHlzaXMuICBJIGRvbid0IGNsYWltIHRvIGJlIHRo ZSBmaXJzdA0KCSAgICAgICAgdG8gYXJndWUgdGhhdCByZWxhdGl2ZSAidGhhdCIgaXNuJ3QgYSBw cm9ub3VuLiAgT3R0byBKZXNwZXJzZW4sIHByb2JhYmx5DQoJICAgICAgICB0aGUgZ3JlYXRlc3Qg Z3JhbW1hcmlhbiBldmVyIGluIHRoZSBoaXN0b3J5IG9mIEVuZ2xpc2gsIGFyZ3VlZCBmb3IgaXQg aW4NCgkgICAgICAgIGdyZWF0IGRldGFpbCBpbiB0aGUgZmlyc3QgaGFsZiBvZiB0aGUgMjB0aCBj ZW50dXJ5Lg0KCSAgICAgICANCgkgICAgICAgIEkgaGF2ZW4ndCBwcmVzZW50ZWQgdGhlIGV2aWRl bmNlIGZvciB0aGUgY29uanVuY3Rpb24gYW5hbHlzaXMsIGJlY2F1c2UNCgkgICAgICAgIEkndmUg ZG9uZSB0aGF0IGJlZm9yZSBvbiB0aGlzIGxpc3QsIGJ1dCBJJ2xsIGJlIGdsYWQgdG8gaWYgeW91 J2QgbGlrZSB0bw0KCSAgICAgICAgc2VlIGl0Lg0KCSAgICAgICANCgkgICAgICAgIEhlcmIgU3Rh aGxrZQ0KCSAgICAgICAgQW5vdGhlciBCYWxsIFN0YXRlcg0KCSAgICAgICANCgkgICAgICAgIFRv IGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3Qn cyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KCSAgICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlv LmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwNCgkgICAgICAgIGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVh dmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQoJICAgICAgIA0KCSAgICAgICAgVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0 IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCgkgICAgICAgDQoJICAgICAgICBUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRo aXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBh dDoNCgkgICAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRl Zy5odG1sDQoJICAgICAgICBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICJKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0Ig0KCSAg ICAgICANCgkgICAgICAgIFZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcv DQoJICAgICAgIA0KCQ0KCVRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVh c2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KCSAgICAgaHR0cDovL2xpc3Rz ZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sDQoJYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBs ZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCgkNCglWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcu b3JnLw0KCQ0KDQo= ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:22:39 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000702020002010907010603" --------------000702020002010907010603 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb, OK. You pretty much got me now on subject deletion. But it does still=20 seem to me that the deletion rules for content clauses are different=20 than for relatives, and that acts much like which and who when these=20 deletion decisions come into play. I guess I'm holding out for the=20 point that it's more than the influence of traditional grammar that=20 keeps some of us thinking that acts enough like which and who to be more = than just a routine complementizer in certain instances. The question=20 isn't so much whether I can follow and accept the argument as it is that = I still find this way of looking at it counterintuitive. As Richard=20 said in an earlier post, if it feels like a pronoun, wouldn't it be a=20 pronoun? If we can substitute it for which in some instances, does that = mean it is evolving pronoun like attributes? Like many grammatical=20 phenomena, it is slightly different from everything else in its class? =20 Is the fact that it sometimes feels like a pronoun irrelevant? Craig Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote: >Craig, > >I don't think any of this belongs in an undergrad grammar class, althoug= h in mine I do treat "that" as a conjunction and have a handout that lays= it out nicely. > >But here are the problems with your position: > >That in relatives is not only not a demonstrative pronoun (I wasn't argu= ing that), it's not a pronoun at all. > >The deletion of that is a single rule, not two. Since the coreferential= NP in the relative clause deletes under identity with the head NP, it de= letes in all positions, including subject. This is true with wh-relative= s as well, by the way. The fact that we can't say "Here are the fries wh= ich/that a hamburger and 0 were sitting on the counter" indicates that th= ere is deletion in subject position, but this deletion is blocked by a co= ordinate structure, what John Ross called the Coordinate Structure Constr= aint. There is a perceptual constraint on the deletion of that when the = subject of the RC has been deleted under coreference, and that is that fo= r most speakers the verb of the RC then becomes the main verb and the res= t of the sentence doesn't parse. However, for many speakers, "This is th= e guy 0 met me at the airport" is grammatical. The constraints governing= that-deletion are subtle and complex, but they're laid out in some detai= l in Bolinger's _That's that_ and in Huddleston&Pullum. > >We have a long grammatical tradition of in which relative that is treate= d as a pronoun, but it's not a unanimous tradition, and the best of tradi= tional grammarians, like Jespersen, have presented strong cases for rejec= ting the position. > >Herb > >Herb > >Herb, > When I mentioned that which and who are pronouns, I was just trying t= o clarify the discussion a bit for anyone who wasn't around the last time= =2E It was an attempt to reaffirm agreements. > I'm still getting a little stuck not seeing content clauses and rela= tive clauses as having slightly different structures and slightly differe= nt deletion rules. Here's my current attempt to muddle through. (In pas= sing,. I'd like to say I do see three forms of "that" at work. That in a= relative clause is certainly not the demonstrative pronoun. I was never = trying to argue for that.) >For a content clause, deletion is possible if the clause follows the mai= n verb, quite often a mental process verb, in traditional direct object s= lot, and that is, as I see it, because the main clause verb is already ex= plicit. I believe that she loves me. I believe she loves me. Both are = very clear and highly grammatical. And I can make the same clause subjec= t. That she loves me is believable. In this case, though, deletion isn't= acceptable. I can't say She loves me is believable. In this case, I t= hank that is because loves seems to be the main verb, but turns out not t= o be, and the language requires or expects us to make that explicit ahead= of time. In other words, we need the that to render the clause explicit= ly subordinate. It is clearly not a pronoun in any way, shape or form be= cause it has no grammatical role within the clause itself. The that is al= so required if the clause shows up as a complement to a head noun. My be= lief that she loves me.... We can't say My belief she loves me is wrong.= The that is required to subordinate or complementize the clause. It's = not a pronoun, again, because it has no role within the clause. Here, I t= hink, we are in deep harmony. > For relative clauses, though, we have a slightly different deletion = process. I can say everything that she touches or everything she touches= , and the deletion doesn't give us problems. I can say Everything that t= ouches her touches me, but not everything touches her touches me. The o= nly way to explain that is to say that the clause seems to require an exp= licit subject, not at all an issue with content clauses because the "that= " never remotely resembles a subject. (Without going into detail, the rul= e works well with which and whom as well. There's no deletion when they = act as subject.) If that is subordinator or complementizer in these claus= es as well, then I am forced to say that we need a complementizer to fill= the subject slot because relative clauses won't allow us to leave that s= lot empty. The reason many of us are balking at this (I don't think it's= just the bad habits of the old grammar) is that the that looks and feels= like a pronoun when it does. Unlike the that in a content clause, it se= ems to be filling a grammatical role. =20 > We need to say that relative clauses cannot delete their pronoun or= complementizer when there is no [other] subject explicitly rendered. It= 's a problem that simply never arises with content clauses. If the that = acts in place of the subject and is not a pronoun, then we have to say th= ere are relative clauses in which a subject never appears. This is a dif= ferent frame of reference than I am used to. (And I have to admit that I = am warming up to it a bit as I go.) The other problem, of course, is in d= eciding how much of this would just be a distraction in an undergrad gram= mar course. That is certainly different in some ways and similar in some = ways to the (other?) relative pronouns. The big question is if it's su= fficiently different to call it something else. If not, then we certainl= y need to assert that relative that and demonstrative that are not the sa= me. To me, content clause that and relative clause that differ as well, a= t least in terms of deletion. In some way that never happens with conten= t clauses, it takes on the look and feel of a pronoun. > I hope all this makes sense. This time through, I think we are more= elegant in the disagreement. (I can't think of anyone I would rather eng= age in this way; I suspect one way or another to learn from it.) > >Craig > >To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interfa= ce at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >and select "Join or leave the list" > >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > =20 > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------000702020002010907010603 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herb,

OK. You pretty much got me now on subject deletion. But it does still seem to me that the deletion rules for content clauses are different than for relatives, and that acts much like which and who when these deletion decisions come into play. I guess I'm holding out for the point that it's more than the influence of traditional grammar that keeps some of us thinking that acts enough like which and who to be more than just a routine complementizer in certain instances. The question isn't so much whether I can follow and accept the argument as it is that I still find this way of looking at it counterintuitive. As Richard said in an earlier post, if it feels like a pronoun, wouldn't it be a pronoun? If we can substitute it for which in some instances, does that mean it is evolving pronoun like attributes? Like many grammatical phenomena, it is slightly different from everything else in its class?
Is the fact that it sometimes feels like a pronoun irrelevant?

Craig

Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:

[log in to unmask]">
Craig, I don't think any of this belongs in an undergrad grammar class, although in mine I do treat "that" as a conjunction and have a handout that lays it out nicely. But here are the problems with your position: That in relatives is not only not a demonstrative pronoun (I wasn't arguing that), it's not a pronoun at all. The deletion of that is a single rule, not two. Since the coreferential NP in the relative clause deletes under identity with the head NP, it deletes in all positions, including subject. This is true with wh-relatives as well, by the way. The fact that we can't say "Here are the fries which/that a hamburger and 0 were sitting on the counter" indicates that there is deletion in subject position, but this deletion is blocked by a coordinate structure, what John Ross called the Coordinate Structure Constraint. There is a perceptual constraint on the deletion of that when the subject of the RC has been deleted under coreference, and that is that for most speakers the verb of the RC then becomes the main verb and the rest of the sentence doesn't parse. However, for many speakers, "This is the guy 0 met me at the airport" is grammatical. The constraints governing that-deletion are subtle and complex, but they're laid out in some detail in Bolinger's _That's that_ and in Hudd leston&Pullum. We have a long grammatical tradition of in which relative that is treated as a pronoun, but it's not a unanimous tradition, and the best of traditional grammarians, like Jespersen, have presented strong cases for rejecting the position. Herb Herb Herb, When I mentioned that which and who are pronouns, I was just trying to clarify the discussion a bit for anyone who wasn't around the last time. It was an attempt to reaffirm agreements. I'm still getting a little stuck not seeing content clauses and relative clauses as having slightly different structures and slightly different deletion rules. Here's my current attempt to muddle through. (In passing,. I'd like to say I do see three forms of "that" at work. That in a relative clause is certainly not the demonstrative pronoun. I was never trying to argue for that.) For a content clause, deletion is possible if the clause follows the main verb, quite often a mental process verb, in traditional direct object slot, and that is, as I see it, because the main clause verb is already explicit. I believe that she loves me. I believe she loves me. Both are very clear and highly grammatical. And I can make the same clause subject. That she loves me is believable. In this case, though, deletion isn't acceptable. I can't say She loves me is believable. In this case, I thank that is because loves seems to be the main verb, but turns out not to be, and the language requires or expects us to make that explicit ahead of time. In other words, we need the that to render the clause explicitly subordinate. It is clearly not a pronoun in any way, shape or form because it has no grammatical role within the clause itself. The that is also required if the clause shows up as a complement to a head noun. My belief that she loves me.... We can't say My belief she loves me is wrong. The that is required to subordinate or complementize the clause. It's not a pronoun, again, because it has no role within the clause. Here, I think, we are in deep harmony. For relative clauses, though, we have a slightly different deletion process. I can say everything that she touches or everything she touches, and the deletion doesn't give us problems. I can say Everything that touches her touches me, but not everything touches her touches me. The only way to explain that is to say that the clause seems to require an explicit subject, not at all an issue with content clauses because the "that" never remotely resembles a subject. (Without going into detail, the rule works well with which and whom as well. There's no deletion when they act as subject.) If that is subordinator or complementizer in these clauses as well, then I am forced to say that we need a complementizer to fill the subject slot because relative clauses won't allow us to leave that slot empty. The reason many of us are balking at this (I don't think it's just the bad habits of the old grammar) is that the that looks and feels like a pronoun when it does. Unlike the that in a content clause, it seems to be filling a grammatical role. We need to say that relative clauses cannot delete their pronoun or complementizer when there is no [other] subject explicitly rendered. It's a problem that simply never arises with content clauses. If the that acts in place of the subject and is not a pronoun, then we have to say there are relative clauses in which a subject never appears. This is a different frame of reference than I am used to. (And I have to admit that I am warming up to it a bit as I go.) The other problem, of course, is in deciding how much of this would just be a distraction in an undergrad grammar course. That is certainly different in some ways and similar in some ways to the (other?) relative pronouns. The big question is if it's sufficiently different to call it something else. If not, then we certainly need to assert that relative that and demonstrative that are not the same. To me, content clause that and relative clause that differ as well, at least in terms of deletion. In some wa y that never happens with content clauses, it takes on the look and feel of a pronoun. I hope all this makes sense. This time through, I think we are more elegant in the disagreement. (I can't think of anyone I would rather engage in this way; I suspect one way or another to learn from it.) Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------000702020002010907010603-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:27:07 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: 4 C's MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeff Weimelt and I will be presenting at the conference on college composition and communication (NCTE group) this coming week in San Francisco. (Friday morning, 9:30-10:45, H.05.) We sincerely invite any and all ATEG members to come to the session and/or introduce yourselves during the conference. If you are presenting on grammar, we would like to support you as well. Grammar presentations have been fairly rare, so mutual support is in everyone's interest. We are doing what we can to reintegrate grammar and writing instruction along new paradigms. There may have been historically important reasons for grammar and writing instruction to be at war, but we will be doing our best to help heal that split. I hope to see you there. Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:04:18 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bruce, I do differ with you on your analysis of the February sentence. I can't = see how February can be a common noun in the RC since it must be = coreferential to its head. The only difference I see in the two uses is = that the head is specific while the coreferent, which is 0, is generic. = But it's proper in both cases. In the second sentence, I agree that not all the son's instincts are in = play, just his solitary ones, but here I don't read a specific/generic = contrast. They're both specific. I'm puzzled also by the domain of the reference of "that" being of = article scope rather than of NP scope. I wonder if the demonstrative = "that" is interfering here. But we remain pretty much apart on the issue. And I think the problem = is a default claim that relative that is pronominal. That claim has to = be argued for, given the close similarity of relative that, I would say = identity, to conjunctive that. Herb =20 Herb, Thank you for your patience in helping me out. Your points are well = taken. I'm still a little uncomfortable about melding (2) and (3). The nature = of the "pronoun" of (3) seems to turn on the restrictive/non-restrictive = opposition. The two examples of non-restrictive clauses are problematic for me and = may deserve a more careful analysis. Let me work this out. February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year = prolonged the bitter weather. In this sentence the name of the month is proper, if it is referring to = the one month of the year with that name. When the author brings into = consideration the other years, the noun becomes common. In the dependent clause the noun = is common. In the main clause it is proper. The proper noun being fully defined in = the main clause cannot be identified better by adding an adjective clause. = So the clause is indeed non-restrictive by the normal definition of = modification. However, the dependent clause is complementing the definiteness of the = proper noun of the main clause. This is the same function that the content = clause has as an "appositive." So they have used the term "supplementary relative" = for a complement. I still think they are right when they call it "relative." = I assume you differ there. It now seems to be a "relative-pro-article." She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = instincts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. I think it is clear from a careful reading of this sentence that the = author did not intend that the first person be understood as trying to stifle all = of her son's instincts. The author is talking about some of her son's = instincts, namely those that the first person had tried to stifle. Paratactic = paraphrase may help to display this. First the non-restrictive interpretation: She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = instincts I had tried--and failed-to stifle these instincts. Now the restrictive interpretation: I had tried--and failed-to stifle (certain ones of) her son's instincts. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of these instincts. My impression is that the difficulty arises when the strict = interpretation of the noun phrase changes between the main clause and the dependent = clause. Here it seems to be the specificity of the instincts that needs the = complementation. Another vote for the "relative-pro-article." I hope these arguments don't go around in a circle again. I am = convinced of the relative nature of that in adjective clauses, but its antecedent = appears to be the normal domain of an article, rather than the full noun phrase. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/11/2005 8:27:47 AM >>> Bruce, I'm not sure yet that a three-way distinction works. The demonstrative = we agree on. Here are the differences you outline between 2 and 3: 2 has only one morphological manifestation, occurs at the beginning of a content clause which may include appositives. 3 occurs at the beginning of an adjective clause, always restrictive, conjunction may be omitted Here are my problems. 3 also has only one morphological manifestation, = so 2 and 3 are alike in that. 2 may be omitted, as in "I know it's late," so = they're alike in that. Appositives (2) may start with "that". = Huddleston&Pullum (p. 1052) note that, in what they call "supplementary relatives", their term = for non-restrictives, "that" is allowed, as in February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year = prolonged the bitter weather. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = insticnts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. 2 and 3 are thus alike in appositives may start with "that". That fact that one kind of that-clause identifies and another classifies = is not a function of the "that" but of distinction between complement and = modifier, which is why I'm uncomfortable with noun clauses after verbs, nouns, and adjectives as appositives. They're complements, not modifiers, and = appositives are modifiers. Your claim that "(3)is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted" begs the question. It assumes that (3) is a pronoun, but there = is no evidence to support this claim. That-relatives in English, like = relatives in a lot of languages, involve deletion of the embedded coreferent. In some = complex cases a resumptive pronoun shows up, although English typically doesn't = like resumptives. But consider Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote *0/it. Deletion would result in an island constraint violation. The = resumptive, while inelegant, makes the sentence grammatical. The fact that a pronoun can = appear in its in situ position is pretty strong evidence that "that" isn't the pronoun. The that of a that-relative is identical to the that of a noun clause. = It's deletable, it's morphologically invariant, and it doesn't occur in = places where a pronoun can, like after a preposition. 2 and 3 are indistinguishable. Herb Herb, Maybe Occam (Ockham) would object, but I don't have a problem with three "that"s. 1) The demonstrative. This appears before nouns. It also has a = pronoun form for use without the noun. There are four distinct morphological = instances of the demonstrative: this, these, that, those. 2) The conjunction for a noun clause. This is the variety of noun = clause often called a content clause. There is only one morphological = manifestation. The noun clause may appear in virtually all the functions of a noun. = The appositive (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion. 3) The conjunction for an adjective clause. This is the variety of = adjective clause used to identify rather than describe or classify. It is always restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in this kind of = clause. The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The idea of my last post is = that you could argue that the conjunction of the noun clause (2) can be seen as = being used as a pronoun as the connective for the adjective clause (3). The morphology of (2) and (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: = (2) is independent of the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an = intergral part, yet as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in its = clause as a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent clause formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the stretch that one = might be justified in calling (3) a pronominalized version of (2). It is of some interest here with regard to pronunciation that the = conjunction than was often indistinguishable from then in 17th Century England and = is still so in many dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative = adverb of the degree clause while the second is either a relative adverb of a = temporal clause (subordinate clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate = clause). The second form is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. Thus = we have three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as that, = but here they are adverbs. Hope this helps. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM >>> Bruce, Interesting arguments! Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and also reports and describes the use of "as" to introduce a relative clause, as = in cases like "not as many as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants = to". You're right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the = question of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. But consider = the alternative. If my arguments don't apply to relative "that", then we = have THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that introduces noun clauses, = the demonstrative pronoun, and the relative "that". But the relative "that" behaves morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like the demonstrative, = so there's little reason for positing the third. "Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"? I like that. Just think = the potential it gives us as a model for naming lexical categories! Herb Herb, Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that = certain adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with a pronoun. In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so = maybe it doesn't help after all. John is taller than George. John is taller than George is. John is taller than George is tall. The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing John's height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing that the = -er is referring to, the degree of John's tallness. Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it = isn't the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first three = points of the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a "pronominalized = subordinating conjunction." Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>> Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much = is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic = evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a = subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" = in I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously = flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in = some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no = function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, = OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun = phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of = verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is = the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by = relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the = analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely = sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used = to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after = nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives = doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and = calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still = not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems = to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with = its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival = clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer = in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content = clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, = but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as = appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. = Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the = misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard = the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:16:00 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Seth, I feel properly skewered, or, as I commented when they were tarring the = third floor exterior walls of the building we now inhabit at BSU, tarred = by my own pet hoist. You're right that the pronouns you name are all invariant. Actually, in = terms of productive inflectional morphology, English pronouns are = hopelessly irregular and have been since late Old English or before = that, so it would be reasonable to say that no English pronouns inflect, = since none of them has regular inflection. However, I'll still go with the argument I stated. Demonstrative = determiner "that" can't take a genitive because the English genitive = attaches to an NP, not to a determiner. If "that" in an RC is a = pronoun, it's not a demonstrative pronoun because it's not deictic, and = the demonstrative is, so the fact that demonstrative pronoun "that" = lacks a genitive isn't relevant. "Who" has a genitive "whose". Why = doesn't relative that have one? This remains a valid question. But the greater question remains what evidence there is for calling = relative that a pronoun. It can't be argued that it replaces the = wh-word for two reasons. Historically the reverse was the case, and = syntactically "that" is COMP and "which" is COMP+pronoun. They're both = under the COMP node. So what is it that makes relative that a pronoun? Herb =20 Tahnks, Herb, for your succinct and articulate response. =20 Yes, I know Jespersen (not personally, of course), and the wonderful = richness of his work. =20 One point I want to take issue with--I need to throw the "question = begging" charge backatcha: you say, 3. This seriously begs the question. If "that" is a conjunction, we = have an excellent and natural explanation for why it doesn't have a = genitive. Conjunctions don't. Nouns and pronouns do. If "that" is a = pronoun, then we have to have an explanation for why it doesn't have a = genitive. We can't argue that it's because "that" as a demonstrative = determiner doesn't either because syntactically a genitive NP fills the = determiner slot. Check any of the major reference grammars on that. Perhaps I'm being dense, but it seems to me that you're begging the = question as well, since pronoun "that" has no inflected possessive form = either; neither do any of the demonstrative pronouns. Neither does = Relative pronoun "which." What do we do with that? Or am I missing = something here? =20 As I'm wont to tell my students: we can regard "that" as a gift or an = evil, for it does so many things. =20 Thanks-- Seth =20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of = Stahlke, Herbert F.W.=20 Sent: Thu 3/10/2005 8:09 PM=20 To: [log in to unmask] Cc:=20 Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who" =09 =09 Seth, =09 A good set of questions. =09 =09 >I'm not getting how that in an adjective clause--a clause modifying a = noun--is >not a relative pronoun, but is a subordinating conjunction. = I'm not sure what >you mean by your use of the term "subordinating = conjunction", which I >understand as referring to a word that marks an = adverb clause (e.g. because). >DO you simply mean that "that" with a = clause following a noun, a clause that >seems to modify the noun, simply = marks the dependent status of the clause? =09 >Also, you say that >[snip] >But to address the reasons why "that" simply is not a pronoun, again, = consider >the following: =09 >Rel "that" is always unstressed. Pronominal "that" is stressed. >Rel "that" never exhibits the plural form "those". Pronominal "that" = does. >Rel "that" can't take a genitive suffix. Pronominal "that" can't = either, but >we can get "that one's". >Rel "that" can't occur after a preposition as its object. Pronominal = "that" >can. =09 >OK: these are features of pronouns; but on the contrary, =09 >1. Aren't relative pronouns generally unstressed (or are my ears = >untutored)? >2. Relative pronouns "who" and "which" exhibit no inflected plural = >form--though they are used for plural reference; and Rel "that" seems = to do so >as well ("The book/s that I bought") >3. Yes, Rel "that" can't take a genitive suffix; so we use "whose" = ("The >book that was torn" vs. "The book whose cover was torn") >4. And, yes, Rel "that" can't appear in the objective case = positions; so we >use "which" instead: =09 >*The play about that we had heard >The play about which we had heard. =09 Let me take these one at a time. =09 1. Yes, wh-pronouns are unstressed in relative clauses. They aren't = typically in questions, but they are in RCs. However, the contrast I = was making was between "that" as a conjunction and "that" as a pronoun. = The former is not stressed and the latter is. =09 2. Yes, again. The wh-words lost their plurals and case forms, except = for "whose" and "whom," in Middle English. But the point here is that = if "that" is a pronoun, then it has a plural form "those". None of the = wh-words does under any circumstances. We say "those books", but not = "the books those I bought". We have to use "that" in the latter case. = This is a serious problem for calling relative "that" a pronoun. =09 3. This seriously begs the question. If "that" is a conjunction, we = have an excellent and natural explanation for why it doesn't have a = genitive. Conjunctions don't. Nouns and pronouns do. If "that" is a = pronoun, then we have to have an explanation for why it doesn't have a = genitive. We can't argue that it's because "that" as a demonstrative = determiner doesn't either because syntactically a genitive NP fills the = determiner slot. Check any of the major reference grammars on that. =09 4. This also begs the question, but my argument wasn't very strong = anyway, since we don't typically say "I saw which on the table". =09 >So, I still don't understand. Although, historically, "that" was not = a >Relative Pronoun, I don't see how it doesn't behave like one now--or = enough >like one that it matters. What are the problems that are = created by analyzing >it as such? =09 I think I've handled objections 1-4. If so, the appearance that "that" = behaves like a pronoun is the result of a faulty analysis of its = behavior and a rejection of the morpho-syntactic facts. Let me note = again that this analysis of "that" doesn't originate with me. I = expanded on it in my 1976 Language article, but the basic case is made = eloquently and in great detail by Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English = Grammar on Historical Principles, one of the more important studies of = English grammar. =09 The last time we had this discussion on the list there was also great = resistance to the conjunction analysis. No one seriously challenged the = morpho-syntactic facts, but people wanted to hold on to the relative = pronoun analysis in the face of them and proposed psycholinguistic = experiments that can't be performed and gut feeling as reasons for = holding on to it. Tradition is very strong in grammar, but in this = case, it's wrong. Not that any high school or college student is likely = to be harmed by perpetuating this faulty tradition. =09 Herb =09 =09 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of = Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Thu 3/10/2005 10:18 AM To: [log in to unmask] Cc: Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who" =20 =20 =09 Dick, =20 There's no question that that-relatives and wh-relatives = function similarly, although there is a very subtle and insightful study = by Dwight Bolinger titled _That's that_ that discusses the meaning = "that" may bring to a relative clause. It's been some time since I read = it, but I think I'll have another go at it. It was a very rewarding = piece. =20 The similarity of function, though, is a similarity in clause = structure and function. The clauses are modifiers of nouns, that is, = have head nouns. They are alike in that they have systematic gaps. = Whatever thematic role the embedded noun had in the RC, that spot shows = a gap, whether the COMP is "that" or wh-x. The only difference between = them is that that-rels have only deletion but wh-rels have deletion and = movement. The fact that even the subject position can be empty is = demonstrate by island constraint violations in sentences like =20 *The fries that hamburgers and 0 were served tasted greasy. =20 That there may be subtle differences in meaning between = that-rels and wh-rels is a natural consequence of the fact that both = structures exist. This happens when two words arise that are near = synonyms. The language finds a way to differentiate them. There will = be overlap, but they will be slightly distinct. I've just been dealing = with this in another area in a paper I'm just finishing with a couple of = grad students. The suffixes -nce and -ncy have a common source in Late = Latin present participles like "diligentia". In the 2nd c. the /t/ = assibilated producing a pronunciation reflected in the -nc- spelling and = in a word like "intelligentsia". But -nce and -ncy now differ in that = -nce typically has the meaning of "quality" and -ncy may be either = "quality" or "state". The meanings of etymologically identical suffixes = are diverging but are not completely distinct. The same is true with = that-rels and wh-rels. =20 But to address the reasons why "that" simply is not a pronoun, = again, consider the following: =20 Rel "that" is always unstressed. Pronominal "that" is = stressed. Rel "that" never exhibits the plural form "those". Pronominal = "that" does. Rel "that" can't take a genitive suffix. Pronominal "that" = can't either, but we can get "that one's". Rel "that" can't occur after a preposition as its object. = Pronominal "that" can. =20 In short. Rel "that" has none of the properties of a pronoun, = for the simple reason that it's identical to subordinating conjunction = "that". This explanation accounts neatly for the facts. The pronoun = analysis presents a whole set of problems that are anomalous. =20 Herb =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Herb, =20 Still, intuitively, it's hard to see how in the following pair, = we are using "who" and "that" differently. =20 The boss who hired me ... The boss that hired me ... =20 They sure feel like they're interchangeable and performing the = same function. Might it be that they evolved on different historical = paths but that in the mental grammar of the typical present-day = speaker of English have come to be identical in function? If so, wouldn't = that function be that of relative pronoun? =20 Dick Veit ________________________ =20 Richard Veit Department of English, UNCW Wilmington, NC 28403-5947 910-962-3324 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert = F.W. Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:40 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who" =20 Helene, =20 To expand on my cryptic response to Martha, "that" is the older = of the two ways of starting a relative clause. "Who" doesn't appear = in relative clauses until the 15th century. "That" appears six = centuries earlier. At the time, "that", or its ancestor, was not a = pronoun. It also is not a pronoun in modern English. It is simply a = subordinating conjunction. This addresses directly the question of whether = or not "that" can refer to humans. It's a conjunction. Conjunctions = don't refer to anything. Using "that" in something like "The man = that met me at the airport" is fine because "that" is a subordinating = conjunction and doesn't replace the subject or stand for the subject or = refer to "the man" because only pronouns refer and it's not a pronoun. =20 The rule that "that" can't refer to humans is a stylistic = preference based on a faulty grammatical analysis. I don't claim to be = the first to argue that relative "that" isn't a pronoun. Otto Jespersen, = probably the greatest grammarian ever in the history of English, argued = for it in great detail in the first half of the 20th century. =20 I haven't presented the evidence for the conjunction analysis, = because I've done that before on this list, but I'll be glad to if = you'd like to see it. =20 Herb Stahlke Another Ball Stater =20 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's = web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" =20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ =20 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's = web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" =20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ =20 =09 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" =09 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ =09 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:42:52 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, Here are the rules governing the occurrence of "that" in content = clauses, quoting most of the time from Huddleston&Pullum (652-654): "That" must appear if a} when the content clause is subject or otherwise precedes the matrix = predicator b) the content clause is adjunct, as in He appealed to us to bring his case to the attention of the authorities = that justice might be done. c) when the content clause is complelemtn to comparative "that"/"as", as = in I'd rather (that) he hired a taxi than that he drove my car. "That" must be omitted when the content clause is embedded within an = unbounded dependency in such a way that its subject is reallized by a = gap: optional in She thinks (that) Max is the ringleader. excluded in Who does she thing ___ is the ringleader? In other cases there are a variety of conditions governing deletability = that I won't enumerate here. H&P also lay out the conditions for the deletion of "that" in relative = clauses (pp. 1054-6). "That" can't be deleted if the relativized element is the subject of the = relative clause, as in "The car that 0 hit us was Ed's". "That" can't be deleted if it is not adjacent to the subject, as in "I = found I needed a file that only the day before I had sent to be = shredded." "That" can't be deleted in supplementary (their term for = non-restrictive) relatives. "That" can't be deleted if the RC is extraposed, as in "Something came = up that I hadn't predicted." You're right that the conditions governing deletion in the two = structures, content vs. relative clauses. However, I think this is a = function of the grammar of the two types of clause, not a result of = there being two different thats. By the way, H&P also give an interesting set of reasons, beyond and = better than those I've given, for why "that" is not a pronoun in = relative clauses but is rather a subordinator. But the arguments are = pretty detailed and you're better off going to H&P pp. 1056-7 yourself = for them. Herb Herb, OK. You pretty much got me now on subject deletion. But it does still = seem to me that the deletion rules for content clauses are different = than for relatives, and that acts much like which and who when these = deletion decisions come into play. I guess I'm holding out for the = point that it's more than the influence of traditional grammar that = keeps some of us thinking that acts enough like which and who to be more = than just a routine complementizer in certain instances. The question = isn't so much whether I can follow and accept the argument as it is that = I still find this way of looking at it counterintuitive. As Richard = said in an earlier post, if it feels like a pronoun, wouldn't it be a = pronoun? If we can substitute it for which in some instances, does that = mean it is evolving pronoun like attributes? Like many grammatical = phenomena, it is slightly different from everything else in its class? =20 Is the fact that it sometimes feels like a pronoun irrelevant? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 07:11:41 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Bruce D. Despain" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Herb, You say that February must be coreferential to its head. Doesn't that make it a pronoun? My impulse was to analyze it allowing that the head was an article-like properness in the specific February. What I overlooked was a second complication of personification in the matrix, which may have affected the choice of connective. Let's try it with a definite noun (distorted content, however). (1) The treasurer, that in other companies held the responsibility to make deals, in this company kept funds tight. (2) The treasurer, who in other companies held the responsibility to make deals, in this company kept funds tight. In (1) the predicate of the matrix seems to be about the position, in (2) the person. The fact that in the dependent clause the referent is generic and in the matrix specific, does not seem to affect the choice of connective after all. So when we say (3), it seems a bit odd. We can't personify well with "which." (3) ?February, which in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. With the other example of the supplementary relative we agreed on the antecedent. I think it is significant that the reference seems to be to instincts already mentioned previously, that indeed there is a demonstrative or at least pronominal aspect to the connective being used. The supplementary nature would then have to do with the missing antecedent as in (4). (4) She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts, (the ones) that I had tried--and failed--to stifle. Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:04 PM Subject: Re: which and that Bruce, I do differ with you on your analysis of the February sentence. I can't see how February can be a common noun in the RC since it must be coreferential to its head. The only difference I see in the two uses is that the head is specific while the coreferent, which is 0, is generic. But it's proper in both cases. In the second sentence, I agree that not all the son's instincts are in play, just his solitary ones, but here I don't read a specific/generic contrast. They're both specific. I'm puzzled also by the domain of the reference of "that" being of article scope rather than of NP scope. I wonder if the demonstrative "that" is interfering here. But we remain pretty much apart on the issue. And I think the problem is a default claim that relative that is pronominal. That claim has to be argued for, given the close similarity of relative that, I would say identity, to conjunctive that. Herb Herb, Thank you for your patience in helping me out. Your points are well taken. I'm still a little uncomfortable about melding (2) and (3). The nature of the "pronoun" of (3) seems to turn on the restrictive/non-restrictive opposition. The two examples of non-restrictive clauses are problematic for me and may deserve a more careful analysis. Let me work this out. February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. In this sentence the name of the month is proper, if it is referring to the one month of the year with that name. When the author brings into consideration the other years, the noun becomes common. In the dependent clause the noun is common. In the main clause it is proper. The proper noun being fully defined in the main clause cannot be identified better by adding an adjective clause. So the clause is indeed non-restrictive by the normal definition of modification. However, the dependent clause is complementing the definiteness of the proper noun of the main clause. This is the same function that the content clause has as an "appositive." So they have used the term "supplementary relative" for a complement. I still think they are right when they call it "relative." I assume you differ there. It now seems to be a "relative-pro-article." She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. I think it is clear from a careful reading of this sentence that the author did not intend that the first person be understood as trying to stifle all of her son's instincts. The author is talking about some of her son's instincts, namely those that the first person had tried to stifle. Paratactic paraphrase may help to display this. First the non-restrictive interpretation: She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts I had tried--and failed-to stifle these instincts. Now the restrictive interpretation: I had tried--and failed-to stifle (certain ones of) her son's instincts. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of these instincts. My impression is that the difficulty arises when the strict interpretation of the noun phrase changes between the main clause and the dependent clause. Here it seems to be the specificity of the instincts that needs the complementation. Another vote for the "relative-pro-article." I hope these arguments don't go around in a circle again. I am convinced of the relative nature of that in adjective clauses, but its antecedent appears to be the normal domain of an article, rather than the full noun phrase. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/11/2005 8:27:47 AM >>> Bruce, I'm not sure yet that a three-way distinction works. The demonstrative we agree on. Here are the differences you outline between 2 and 3: 2 has only one morphological manifestation, occurs at the beginning of a content clause which may include appositives. 3 occurs at the beginning of an adjective clause, always restrictive, conjunction may be omitted Here are my problems. 3 also has only one morphological manifestation, so 2 and 3 are alike in that. 2 may be omitted, as in "I know it's late," so they're alike in that. Appositives (2) may start with "that". Huddleston&Pullum (p. 1052) note that, in what they call "supplementary relatives", their term for non-restrictives, "that" is allowed, as in February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's insticnts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. 2 and 3 are thus alike in appositives may start with "that". That fact that one kind of that-clause identifies and another classifies is not a function of the "that" but of distinction between complement and modifier, which is why I'm uncomfortable with noun clauses after verbs, nouns, and adjectives as appositives. They're complements, not modifiers, and appositives are modifiers. Your claim that "(3)is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted" begs the question. It assumes that (3) is a pronoun, but there is no evidence to support this claim. That-relatives in English, like relatives in a lot of languages, involve deletion of the embedded coreferent. In some complex cases a resumptive pronoun shows up, although English typically doesn't like resumptives. But consider Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote *0/it. Deletion would result in an island constraint violation. The resumptive, while inelegant, makes the sentence grammatical. The fact that a pronoun can appear in its in situ position is pretty strong evidence that "that" isn't the pronoun. The that of a that-relative is identical to the that of a noun clause. It's deletable, it's morphologically invariant, and it doesn't occur in places where a pronoun can, like after a preposition. 2 and 3 are indistinguishable. Herb Herb, Maybe Occam (Ockham) would object, but I don't have a problem with three "that"s. 1) The demonstrative. This appears before nouns. It also has a pronoun form for use without the noun. There are four distinct morphological instances of the demonstrative: this, these, that, those. 2) The conjunction for a noun clause. This is the variety of noun clause often called a content clause. There is only one morphological manifestation. The noun clause may appear in virtually all the functions of a noun. The appositive (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion. 3) The conjunction for an adjective clause. This is the variety of adjective clause used to identify rather than describe or classify. It is always restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in this kind of clause. The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The idea of my last post is that you could argue that the conjunction of the noun clause (2) can be seen as being used as a pronoun as the connective for the adjective clause (3). The morphology of (2) and (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: (2) is independent of the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in its clause as a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent clause formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the stretch that one might be justified in calling (3) a pronominalized version of (2). It is of some interest here with regard to pronunciation that the conjunction than was often indistinguishable from then in 17th Century England and is still so in many dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative adverb of the degree clause while the second is either a relative adverb of a temporal clause (subordinate clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate clause). The second form is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. Thus we have three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as that, but here they are adverbs. Hope this helps. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM >>> Bruce, Interesting arguments! Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and also reports and describes the use of "as" to introduce a relative clause, as in cases like "not as many as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants to". You're right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the question of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. But consider the alternative. If my arguments don't apply to relative "that", then we have THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that introduces noun clauses, the demonstrative pronoun, and the relative "that". But the relative "that" behaves morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like the demonstrative, so there's little reason for positing the third. "Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"? I like that. Just think the potential it gives us as a model for naming lexical categories! Herb Herb, Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that certain adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with a pronoun. In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so maybe it doesn't help after all. John is taller than George. John is taller than George is. John is taller than George is tall. The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing John's height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing that the -er is referring to, the degree of John's tallness. Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it isn't the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first three points of the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a "pronominalized subordinating conjunction." Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>> Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" in I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:01:29 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bruce, I'm not sure about your first question. Pronouns are a normal result of = coreference, although so is zero anaphora. Which one occurs depends on = structure. So the zero anaphora in the relative clause reflects the = fact that the underlying "February" as subject of the RC has been = deleted.=20 I can accept the notion that the wh-word brings meaning to the relative = clause, in your "treasurer" example, that "that" doesn't. All "that" = does is mark the embedded sentence as a declarative. =20 I'm going to post later the arguments that H&P raise. They're a little = detailed, and will take a little time to enter, so maybe this evening. Herb =20 Herb, You say that February must be coreferential to its head. Doesn't that = make it a pronoun? My impulse was to analyze it allowing that the head was = an article-like properness in the specific February. What I overlooked was = a second complication of personification in the matrix, which may have affected the choice of connective. Let's try it with a definite noun (distorted content, however). (1) The treasurer, that in other companies held the responsibility to = make deals, in this company kept funds tight. (2) The treasurer, who in other companies held the responsibility to = make deals, in this company kept funds tight. In (1) the predicate of the matrix seems to be about the position, in = (2) the person. The fact that in the dependent clause the referent is = generic and in the matrix specific, does not seem to affect the choice of = connective after all. So when we say (3), it seems a bit odd. We can't personify = well with "which." (3) ?February, which in other years held intimations of spring, this = year prolonged the bitter weather. With the other example of the supplementary relative we agreed on the antecedent. I think it is significant that the reference seems to be to instincts already mentioned previously, that indeed there is a = demonstrative or at least pronominal aspect to the connective being used. The supplementary nature would then have to do with the missing antecedent = as in (4). (4) She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts, (the ones) that I had tried--and failed--to stifle. Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:04 PM Subject: Re: which and that Bruce, I do differ with you on your analysis of the February sentence. I can't = see how February can be a common noun in the RC since it must be = coreferential to its head. The only difference I see in the two uses is that the head = is specific while the coreferent, which is 0, is generic. But it's proper = in both cases. In the second sentence, I agree that not all the son's instincts are in play, just his solitary ones, but here I don't read a specific/generic contrast. They're both specific. I'm puzzled also by the domain of the reference of "that" being of = article scope rather than of NP scope. I wonder if the demonstrative "that" is interfering here. But we remain pretty much apart on the issue. And I think the problem = is a default claim that relative that is pronominal. That claim has to be = argued for, given the close similarity of relative that, I would say identity, = to conjunctive that. Herb Herb, Thank you for your patience in helping me out. Your points are well = taken. I'm still a little uncomfortable about melding (2) and (3). The nature = of the "pronoun" of (3) seems to turn on the restrictive/non-restrictive opposition. The two examples of non-restrictive clauses are problematic for me and = may deserve a more careful analysis. Let me work this out. February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. In this sentence the name of the month is proper, if it is referring to = the one month of the year with that name. When the author brings into = consideration the other years, the noun becomes common. In the dependent clause the noun = is common. In the main clause it is proper. The proper noun being fully defined in = the main clause cannot be identified better by adding an adjective clause. = So the clause is indeed non-restrictive by the normal definition of = modification. However, the dependent clause is complementing the definiteness of the proper noun of the main clause. This is the same function that the content = clause has as an "appositive." So they have used the term "supplementary relative" = for a complement. I still think they are right when they call it "relative." = I assume you differ there. It now seems to be a "relative-pro-article." She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = instincts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. I think it is clear from a careful reading of this sentence that the = author did not intend that the first person be understood as trying to stifle all = of her son's instincts. The author is talking about some of her son's = instincts, namely those that the first person had tried to stifle. Paratactic paraphrase may help to display this. First the non-restrictive interpretation: She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = instincts I had tried--and failed-to stifle these instincts. Now the restrictive interpretation: I had tried--and failed-to stifle (certain ones of) her son's instincts. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of these instincts. My impression is that the difficulty arises when the strict = interpretation of the noun phrase changes between the main clause and the dependent = clause. Here it seems to be the specificity of the instincts that needs the complementation. Another vote for the "relative-pro-article." I hope these arguments don't go around in a circle again. I am = convinced of the relative nature of that in adjective clauses, but its antecedent = appears to be the normal domain of an article, rather than the full noun phrase. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/11/2005 8:27:47 AM >>> Bruce, I'm not sure yet that a three-way distinction works. The demonstrative = we agree on. Here are the differences you outline between 2 and 3: 2 has only one morphological manifestation, occurs at the beginning of a content clause which may include appositives. 3 occurs at the beginning of an adjective clause, always restrictive, conjunction may be omitted Here are my problems. 3 also has only one morphological manifestation, = so 2 and 3 are alike in that. 2 may be omitted, as in "I know it's late," so they're alike in that. Appositives (2) may start with "that". = Huddleston&Pullum (p. 1052) note that, in what they call "supplementary relatives", their term = for non-restrictives, "that" is allowed, as in February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = insticnts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. 2 and 3 are thus alike in appositives may start with "that". That fact that one kind of that-clause identifies and another classifies = is not a function of the "that" but of distinction between complement and = modifier, which is why I'm uncomfortable with noun clauses after verbs, nouns, and adjectives as appositives. They're complements, not modifiers, and appositives are modifiers. Your claim that "(3)is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted" begs the question. It assumes that (3) is a pronoun, but there = is no evidence to support this claim. That-relatives in English, like = relatives in a lot of languages, involve deletion of the embedded coreferent. In some complex cases a resumptive pronoun shows up, although English typically doesn't = like resumptives. But consider Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote *0/it. Deletion would result in an island constraint violation. The = resumptive, while inelegant, makes the sentence grammatical. The fact that a pronoun can appear in its in situ position is pretty strong evidence that "that" isn't the pronoun. The that of a that-relative is identical to the that of a noun clause. = It's deletable, it's morphologically invariant, and it doesn't occur in = places where a pronoun can, like after a preposition. 2 and 3 are indistinguishable. Herb Herb, Maybe Occam (Ockham) would object, but I don't have a problem with three "that"s. 1) The demonstrative. This appears before nouns. It also has a = pronoun form for use without the noun. There are four distinct morphological = instances of the demonstrative: this, these, that, those. 2) The conjunction for a noun clause. This is the variety of noun = clause often called a content clause. There is only one morphological manifestation. The noun clause may appear in virtually all the functions of a noun. = The appositive (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion. 3) The conjunction for an adjective clause. This is the variety of adjective clause used to identify rather than describe or classify. It is always restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in this kind of = clause. The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The idea of my last post is = that you could argue that the conjunction of the noun clause (2) can be seen as = being used as a pronoun as the connective for the adjective clause (3). The morphology of (2) and (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: = (2) is independent of the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in its clause as a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent clause formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the stretch that one might be justified in calling (3) a pronominalized version of (2). It is of some interest here with regard to pronunciation that the conjunction than was often indistinguishable from then in 17th Century England and = is still so in many dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative = adverb of the degree clause while the second is either a relative adverb of a = temporal clause (subordinate clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate = clause). The second form is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. Thus = we have three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as that, = but here they are adverbs. Hope this helps. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM >>> Bruce, Interesting arguments! Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and also reports and describes the use of "as" to introduce a relative clause, as = in cases like "not as many as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants = to". You're right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the question of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. But consider = the alternative. If my arguments don't apply to relative "that", then we = have THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that introduces noun clauses, = the demonstrative pronoun, and the relative "that". But the relative "that" behaves morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like the demonstrative, = so there's little reason for positing the third. "Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"? I like that. Just think = the potential it gives us as a model for naming lexical categories! Herb Herb, Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that = certain adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with a pronoun. In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so maybe it doesn't help after all. John is taller than George. John is taller than George is. John is taller than George is tall. The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing John's height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing that the = -er is referring to, the degree of John's tallness. Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it isn't the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first three = points of the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a "pronominalized subordinating conjunction." Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>> Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much = is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic = evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a = subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" = in I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously = flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in = some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no = function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, = OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of = verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is = the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used = to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after = nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives = doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still = not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems = to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with = its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival = clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer = in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content = clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, = but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as = appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. = Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard = the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:42:00 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "R. Michael Medley (GLS)" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: How much depends on these examples? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I am wondering how much of Herb's argument depends on these two examples that he cites. Are these well-formed sentences of English? Not in my books. I might have heard something of the first kind uttered (certainly never written) by someone who got a little "tangled up" in what he wanted to say (performance error). And the second one sounds like something a learner of English as a second language might utter. Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote it. This is the guy met me at the airport. I am surprised that no one else on the list has yet objected to what appears to me to be spurious evidence. I appreciate the reference to Huddleston and Pullum and look forward to investigating their framework for understanding "that." R. Michael Medley Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, VA 22802 [log in to unmask] (540) 432-4051 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:50:19 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: How much depends on these examples? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Michael, Without knowing more of the nature of your objection the examples, let = me suggest that grammatical well-formedness is scalar rather than = binary. I regard both of these examples as acceptable in informal = writing and speech but not in formal. It's important to recognize that = informal writing is not simply less disciplined English; it's English = with slightly different rules. But consider also the purpose for which I provided these examples. The = first was to illustrate a point about how coreference is expressed. I = noted with the example that English doesn't particularly like resumptive = pronouns but that they aren't completely rejected. The second was to = demonstrate that that-deletion is possible even if a subject is absent. = The point of this was to support my contention that relative that is not = a pronoun and that in a sentence like "Let me recommend a route that may = be quicker" the subject of the relative clause has been deleted. Of = course, H&P's example of subject deletion was in a more formal register: = Who does she think ___ is the ringleader? where both "that" and the = subject are absent. Fortunately my argument doesn't depend crucially on these more = peripheral examples. Herb =20 I am wondering how much of Herb's argument depends on these two examples that he cites. Are these well-formed sentences of English? Not in my books. I might have heard something of the first kind uttered = (certainly never written) by someone who got a little "tangled up" in what he = wanted to say (performance error). And the second one sounds like something a learner of English as a second language might utter. Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote it. This is the guy met me at the airport. I am surprised that no one else on the list has yet objected to what appears to me to be spurious evidence. I appreciate the reference to Huddleston and Pullum and look forward to investigating their framework for understanding "that." R. Michael Medley Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, VA 22802 [log in to unmask] (540) 432-4051 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:17:33 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here's the H&P argument that relative that is not a pronoun (1056-7). = I'll paraphrase where I can. "Wide range of antecedent types and relativized elements If that were a pronoun, its ue would be much wider than that of the = uncontroversial relative pronouns, or indeed of any pro-form at all in = language. Compare:" (sentences quoted, number and comparison formats = changed from small Roman) 1. They gave the prize to the girl [that spoke first]. =3Dwho 2. Have you seen the book [that she was reading]? =3Dwhich 3. He was due to leave the day [that she arrived]. =3Dwhen 4. He followed her to every town [that she went]. =3Dwhere 5. That's not the reason [that she resigned]. =3Dwhy 6. I was impressed by the way [that she controlled the crowd]. =3D*how 7. It wasn't to you [that I was referring]. no wh form 8. She seems to be the happiest [that she has ever been]. no wh form . . . "Instead of proposing a pro-form with such an exceptional range of use, = we are saying that that-relatives do not contain any overt pro-form = linked to the antecedent; they simply have an anaphoric gap, like bare = relatives." "Lack of upward percolation There are no that-relatives matching wh-relatives with a complex = relative phrase: the woman [whose turn it was] *the woman [that's turn it was] the knife [with which he cut it] *the knife [with that he cut it]" If that were a pronoun we'd have to specify that it can't take a = possessive and that it can't occur as the object of a preposition unless = that preposition is stranded. These strict limitations contrast = strongly with the versatility that (1-8) indicate. But if "that" is a = subordinator, then these limitations are predicted naturally by the = analysis: subordinators don't behave in either way. "Finiteness" That-relatives are always finite, as are the declarative content clauses = introduced by "that". Thus the only bare relative that can't be = introduced by "that" is the infinitival relative: a knife to cut it = with vs. *a knife that to cut it with. This is predicted naturally by = the conjunction analysis but requires a special rule under the pronoun = analysis. "Omissibility" "That" is omissible in both relative clauses and content clauses. The = conditions for deletion differ between the two, but in both structures = omissibility is governed by the need to mark the beginning of the clause = to avoid parsing problems. "And in both cases, 'that' is more readily = omitted in simple structures than in complex ones. There is no pro-form = in English that is systematically omissible under remotely similar = conditions." That's their argument. Their first, third, and fourth arguments go = beyond those that I've raised. Herb =20 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Bruce D. = Despain Sent: Sat 3/12/2005 9:11 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Herb, You say that February must be coreferential to its head. Doesn't that = make it a pronoun? My impulse was to analyze it allowing that the head was = an article-like properness in the specific February. What I overlooked was = a second complication of personification in the matrix, which may have affected the choice of connective. Let's try it with a definite noun (distorted content, however). (1) The treasurer, that in other companies held the responsibility to = make deals, in this company kept funds tight. (2) The treasurer, who in other companies held the responsibility to = make deals, in this company kept funds tight. In (1) the predicate of the matrix seems to be about the position, in = (2) the person. The fact that in the dependent clause the referent is = generic and in the matrix specific, does not seem to affect the choice of = connective after all. So when we say (3), it seems a bit odd. We can't personify = well with "which." (3) ?February, which in other years held intimations of spring, this = year prolonged the bitter weather. With the other example of the supplementary relative we agreed on the antecedent. I think it is significant that the reference seems to be to instincts already mentioned previously, that indeed there is a = demonstrative or at least pronominal aspect to the connective being used. The supplementary nature would then have to do with the missing antecedent = as in (4). (4) She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts, (the ones) that I had tried--and failed--to stifle. Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:04 PM Subject: Re: which and that Bruce, I do differ with you on your analysis of the February sentence. I can't = see how February can be a common noun in the RC since it must be = coreferential to its head. The only difference I see in the two uses is that the head = is specific while the coreferent, which is 0, is generic. But it's proper = in both cases. In the second sentence, I agree that not all the son's instincts are in play, just his solitary ones, but here I don't read a specific/generic contrast. They're both specific. I'm puzzled also by the domain of the reference of "that" being of = article scope rather than of NP scope. I wonder if the demonstrative "that" is interfering here. But we remain pretty much apart on the issue. And I think the problem = is a default claim that relative that is pronominal. That claim has to be = argued for, given the close similarity of relative that, I would say identity, = to conjunctive that. Herb Herb, Thank you for your patience in helping me out. Your points are well = taken. I'm still a little uncomfortable about melding (2) and (3). The nature = of the "pronoun" of (3) seems to turn on the restrictive/non-restrictive opposition. The two examples of non-restrictive clauses are problematic for me and = may deserve a more careful analysis. Let me work this out. February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. In this sentence the name of the month is proper, if it is referring to = the one month of the year with that name. When the author brings into = consideration the other years, the noun becomes common. In the dependent clause the noun = is common. In the main clause it is proper. The proper noun being fully defined in = the main clause cannot be identified better by adding an adjective clause. = So the clause is indeed non-restrictive by the normal definition of = modification. However, the dependent clause is complementing the definiteness of the proper noun of the main clause. This is the same function that the content = clause has as an "appositive." So they have used the term "supplementary relative" = for a complement. I still think they are right when they call it "relative." = I assume you differ there. It now seems to be a "relative-pro-article." She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = instincts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. I think it is clear from a careful reading of this sentence that the = author did not intend that the first person be understood as trying to stifle all = of her son's instincts. The author is talking about some of her son's = instincts, namely those that the first person had tried to stifle. Paratactic paraphrase may help to display this. First the non-restrictive interpretation: She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = instincts I had tried--and failed-to stifle these instincts. Now the restrictive interpretation: I had tried--and failed-to stifle (certain ones of) her son's instincts. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of these instincts. My impression is that the difficulty arises when the strict = interpretation of the noun phrase changes between the main clause and the dependent = clause. Here it seems to be the specificity of the instincts that needs the complementation. Another vote for the "relative-pro-article." I hope these arguments don't go around in a circle again. I am = convinced of the relative nature of that in adjective clauses, but its antecedent = appears to be the normal domain of an article, rather than the full noun phrase. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/11/2005 8:27:47 AM >>> Bruce, I'm not sure yet that a three-way distinction works. The demonstrative = we agree on. Here are the differences you outline between 2 and 3: 2 has only one morphological manifestation, occurs at the beginning of a content clause which may include appositives. 3 occurs at the beginning of an adjective clause, always restrictive, conjunction may be omitted Here are my problems. 3 also has only one morphological manifestation, = so 2 and 3 are alike in that. 2 may be omitted, as in "I know it's late," so they're alike in that. Appositives (2) may start with "that". = Huddleston&Pullum (p. 1052) note that, in what they call "supplementary relatives", their term = for non-restrictives, "that" is allowed, as in February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = insticnts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. 2 and 3 are thus alike in appositives may start with "that". That fact that one kind of that-clause identifies and another classifies = is not a function of the "that" but of distinction between complement and = modifier, which is why I'm uncomfortable with noun clauses after verbs, nouns, and adjectives as appositives. They're complements, not modifiers, and appositives are modifiers. Your claim that "(3)is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted" begs the question. It assumes that (3) is a pronoun, but there = is no evidence to support this claim. That-relatives in English, like = relatives in a lot of languages, involve deletion of the embedded coreferent. In some complex cases a resumptive pronoun shows up, although English typically doesn't = like resumptives. But consider Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote *0/it. Deletion would result in an island constraint violation. The = resumptive, while inelegant, makes the sentence grammatical. The fact that a pronoun can appear in its in situ position is pretty strong evidence that "that" isn't the pronoun. The that of a that-relative is identical to the that of a noun clause. = It's deletable, it's morphologically invariant, and it doesn't occur in = places where a pronoun can, like after a preposition. 2 and 3 are indistinguishable. Herb Herb, Maybe Occam (Ockham) would object, but I don't have a problem with three "that"s. 1) The demonstrative. This appears before nouns. It also has a = pronoun form for use without the noun. There are four distinct morphological = instances of the demonstrative: this, these, that, those. 2) The conjunction for a noun clause. This is the variety of noun = clause often called a content clause. There is only one morphological manifestation. The noun clause may appear in virtually all the functions of a noun. = The appositive (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion. 3) The conjunction for an adjective clause. This is the variety of adjective clause used to identify rather than describe or classify. It is always restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in this kind of = clause. The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The idea of my last post is = that you could argue that the conjunction of the noun clause (2) can be seen as = being used as a pronoun as the connective for the adjective clause (3). The morphology of (2) and (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: = (2) is independent of the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in its clause as a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent clause formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the stretch that one might be justified in calling (3) a pronominalized version of (2). It is of some interest here with regard to pronunciation that the conjunction than was often indistinguishable from then in 17th Century England and = is still so in many dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative = adverb of the degree clause while the second is either a relative adverb of a = temporal clause (subordinate clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate = clause). The second form is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. Thus = we have three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as that, = but here they are adverbs. Hope this helps. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM >>> Bruce, Interesting arguments! Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and also reports and describes the use of "as" to introduce a relative clause, as = in cases like "not as many as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants = to". You're right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the question of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. But consider = the alternative. If my arguments don't apply to relative "that", then we = have THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that introduces noun clauses, = the demonstrative pronoun, and the relative "that". But the relative "that" behaves morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like the demonstrative, = so there's little reason for positing the third. "Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"? I like that. Just think = the potential it gives us as a model for naming lexical categories! Herb Herb, Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that = certain adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with a pronoun. In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so maybe it doesn't help after all. John is taller than George. John is taller than George is. John is taller than George is tall. The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing John's height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing that the = -er is referring to, the degree of John's tallness. Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it isn't the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first three = points of the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a "pronominalized subordinating conjunction." Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>> Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much = is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic = evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a = subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" = in I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously = flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in = some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no = function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, = OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of = verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is = the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used = to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after = nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives = doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still = not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems = to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with = its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival = clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer = in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content = clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, = but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as = appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. = Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard = the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:45:36 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030104040902030205050107" --------------030104040902030205050107 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb, I will check it out. Over the weekend, I have reflected on how much=20 of my feeling for this may be influenced by writing and editing choices=20 and the notion that which and that sometimes replace each other=20 depending on restricitve or nonrestrictive nature of the clause. The=20 notion that you can't use "that" for nonrestrictive is certainly=20 skewered by the fact that it is sometimes a subordinator in a content=20 clause and which is not an option. That kind of thinking (frame of=20 reference) tends to make me see that as pronoun in one case and=20 subordinator in the other. But I'm less and less entrenched. We are in hearty agreement, I think, about the nuances of that in=20 these different kinds of structures. Classification into different=20 categories is certainly something understandable. If I stick to=20 pronoun, it might be for ease in teaching and ease in copy editing. I just got H & P's Students Introduction to English Grammar (from=20 Cambridge.). Depsite the fact that my own book (soon to hit the real=20 world !) will compete, I'm looking forward to looking it over. We can't=20 have enough good grammar books, and a rising tide will float us all. Thanks, as always, for your patience with my questions. Craig Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote: >Craig, > >Here are the rules governing the occurrence of "that" in content clauses= , quoting most of the time from Huddleston&Pullum (652-654): > >"That" must appear if >a} when the content clause is subject or otherwise precedes the matrix p= redicator >b) the content clause is adjunct, as in > >He appealed to us to bring his case to the attention of the authorities = that justice might be done. > >c) when the content clause is complelemtn to comparative "that"/"as", as= in > >I'd rather (that) he hired a taxi than that he drove my car. > >"That" must be omitted when the content clause is embedded within an unb= ounded dependency in such a way that its subject is reallized by a gap: > >optional in She thinks (that) Max is the ringleader. >excluded in Who does she thing ___ is the ringleader? > >In other cases there are a variety of conditions governing deletability = that I won't enumerate here. > >H&P also lay out the conditions for the deletion of "that" in relative c= lauses (pp. 1054-6). > >"That" can't be deleted if the relativized element is the subject of the= relative clause, as in "The car that 0 hit us was Ed's". > >"That" can't be deleted if it is not adjacent to the subject, as in "I f= ound I needed a file that only the day before I had sent to be shredded."= > >"That" can't be deleted in supplementary (their term for non-restrictive= ) relatives. > >"That" can't be deleted if the RC is extraposed, as in "Something came u= p that I hadn't predicted." > >You're right that the conditions governing deletion in the two structure= s, content vs. relative clauses. However, I think this is a function of = the grammar of the two types of clause, not a result of there being two d= ifferent thats. > >By the way, H&P also give an interesting set of reasons, beyond and bett= er than those I've given, for why "that" is not a pronoun in relative cla= uses but is rather a subordinator. But the arguments are pretty detailed= and you're better off going to H&P pp. 1056-7 yourself for them. > >Herb > >Herb, > > >OK. You pretty much got me now on subject deletion. But it does still = seem to me that the deletion rules for content clauses are different than= for relatives, and that acts much like which and who when these deletion= decisions come into play. I guess I'm holding out for the point that it= 's more than the influence of traditional grammar that keeps some of us t= hinking that acts enough like which and who to be more than just a routin= e complementizer in certain instances. The question isn't so much whethe= r I can follow and accept the argument as it is that I still find this wa= y of looking at it counterintuitive. As Richard said in an earlier post,= if it feels like a pronoun, wouldn't it be a pronoun? If we can substit= ute it for which in some instances, does that mean it is evolving pronoun= like attributes? Like many grammatical phenomena, it is slightly differ= ent from everything else in its class? =20 > Is the fact that it sometimes feels like a pronoun irrelevant? > >Craig > >To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interfa= ce at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >and select "Join or leave the list" > >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > =20 > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------030104040902030205050107 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herb,
I will check it out. Over the weekend, I have reflected on how much of my feeling for this may be influenced by writing and editing choices and the notion that which and that sometimes replace each other depending on restricitve or nonrestrictive nature of the clause. The notion that you can't use "that" for nonrestrictive is certainly skewered by the fact that it is sometimes a subordinator in a content clause and which is not an option. That kind of thinking (frame of reference) tends to make me see that as pronoun in one case and subordinator in the other. But I'm less and less entrenched.
We are in hearty agreement, I think, about the nuances of that in these different kinds of structures. Classification into different categories is certainly something understandable. If I stick to pronoun, it might be for ease in teaching and ease in copy editing.
I just got H & P's Students Introduction to English Grammar (from Cambridge.). Depsite the fact that my own book (soon to hit the real world !) will compete, I'm looking forward to looking it over. We can't have enough good grammar books, and a rising tide will float us all.
Thanks, as always, for your patience with my questions.

Craig
Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:

[log in to unmask]">
Craig, Here are the rules governing the occurrence of "that" in content clauses, quoting most of the time from Huddleston&Pullum (652-654): "That" must appear if a} when the content clause is subject or otherwise precedes the matrix predicator b) the content clause is adjunct, as in He appealed to us to bring his case to the attention of the authorities that justice might be done. c) when the content clause is complelemtn to comparative "that"/"as", as in I'd rather (that) he hired a taxi than that he drove my car. "That" must be omitted when the content clause is embedded within an unbounded dependency in such a way that its subject is reallized by a gap: optional in She thinks (that) Max is the ringleader. excluded in Who does she thing ___ is the ringleader? In other cases there are a variety of conditions governing deletability that I won't enumerate here. H&P also lay out the conditions for the deletion of "that" in relative clauses (pp. 1054-6). "That" can't be deleted if the relativized element is the subject of the relative clause, as in "The car that 0 hit us was Ed's". "That" can't be deleted if it is not adjacent to the subject, as in "I found I needed a file that only the day before I had sent to be shredded." "That" can't be deleted in supplementary (their term for non-restrictive) relatives. "That" can't be deleted if the RC is extraposed, as in "Something came up that I hadn't predicted." You're right that the conditions governing deletion in the two structures, content vs. relative clauses. However, I think this is a function of the grammar of the two types of clause, not a result of there being two different thats. By the way, H&P also give an interesting set of reasons, beyond and better than those I've given, for why "that" is not a pronoun in relative clauses but is rather a subordinator. But the arguments are pretty detailed and you're better off going to H&P pp. 1056-7 yourself for them. Herb Herb, OK. You pretty much got me now on subject deletion. But it does still seem to me that the deletion rules for content clauses are different than for relatives, and that acts much like which and who when these deletion decisions come into play. I guess I'm holding out for the point that it's more than the influence of traditional grammar that keeps some of us thinking that acts enough like which and who to be more than just a routine complementizer in certain instances. The question isn't so much whether I can follow and accept the argument as it is that I still find this way of looking at it counterintuitive. As Richard said in an earlier post, if it feels like a pronoun, wouldn't it be a pronoun? If we can substitute it for which in some instances, does that mean it is evolving pronoun like attributes? Like many grammatical phenomena, it is slightly different from everything else in its class? Is the fact that it sometimes feels like a pronoun irrelevant? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------030104040902030205050107-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:48:50 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C528A4.E824161B" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C528A4.E824161B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, =20 What you've come close to saying, and what needs to be emphasized in this discussion among teachers, is that this is a case where it doesn't matter a lot which grammatical analysis we teach to UG grammar students or how we deal with it in writing classes. I agree that pedagogical needs sometimes trump analytic validity. No harm is done to students at that level by calling it a pronoun or a conjunction. I do the latter because I know it to be true and I've developed materials to support students as they learn the analysis. =20 I haven't ordered H&P's student book yet but I plan to. And I look forward to seeing yours. =20 Herb =20 =20 Herb, I will check it out. Over the weekend, I have reflected on how much of my feeling for this may be influenced by writing and editing choices and the notion that which and that sometimes replace each other depending on restricitve or nonrestrictive nature of the clause. The notion that you can't use "that" for nonrestrictive is certainly skewered by the fact that it is sometimes a subordinator in a content clause and which is not an option. That kind of thinking (frame of reference) tends to make me see that as pronoun in one case and subordinator in the other. But I'm less and less entrenched.=20 We are in hearty agreement, I think, about the nuances of that in these different kinds of structures. Classification into different categories is certainly something understandable. If I stick to pronoun, it might be for ease in teaching and ease in copy editing. I just got H & P's Students Introduction to English Grammar (from Cambridge.). Depsite the fact that my own book (soon to hit the real world !) will compete, I'm looking forward to looking it over. We can't have enough good grammar books, and a rising tide will float us all. Thanks, as always, for your patience with my questions. Craig Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote: Craig, =20 Here are the rules governing the occurrence of "that" in content clauses, quoting most of the time from Huddleston&Pullum (652-654): =20 "That" must appear if a} when the content clause is subject or otherwise precedes the matrix predicator b) the content clause is adjunct, as in =20 He appealed to us to bring his case to the attention of the authorities that justice might be done. =20 c) when the content clause is complelemtn to comparative "that"/"as", as in =20 I'd rather (that) he hired a taxi than that he drove my car. =20 "That" must be omitted when the content clause is embedded within an unbounded dependency in such a way that its subject is reallized by a gap: =20 optional in She thinks (that) Max is the ringleader. excluded in Who does she thing ___ is the ringleader? =20 In other cases there are a variety of conditions governing deletability that I won't enumerate here. =20 H&P also lay out the conditions for the deletion of "that" in relative clauses (pp. 1054-6). =20 "That" can't be deleted if the relativized element is the subject of the relative clause, as in "The car that 0 hit us was Ed's". =20 "That" can't be deleted if it is not adjacent to the subject, as in "I found I needed a file that only the day before I had sent to be shredded." =20 "That" can't be deleted in supplementary (their term for non-restrictive) relatives. =20 "That" can't be deleted if the RC is extraposed, as in "Something came up that I hadn't predicted." =20 You're right that the conditions governing deletion in the two structures, content vs. relative clauses. However, I think this is a function of the grammar of the two types of clause, not a result of there being two different thats. =20 By the way, H&P also give an interesting set of reasons, beyond and better than those I've given, for why "that" is not a pronoun in relative clauses but is rather a subordinator. But the arguments are pretty detailed and you're better off going to H&P pp. 1056-7 yourself for them. =20 Herb =20 Herb, =20 =20 OK. You pretty much got me now on subject deletion. But it does still seem to me that the deletion rules for content clauses are different than for relatives, and that acts much like which and who when these deletion decisions come into play. I guess I'm holding out for the point that it's more than the influence of traditional grammar that keeps some of us thinking that acts enough like which and who to be more than just a routine complementizer in certain instances. The question isn't so much whether I can follow and accept the argument as it is that I still find this way of looking at it counterintuitive. As Richard said in an earlier post, if it feels like a pronoun, wouldn't it be a pronoun? If we can substitute it for which in some instances, does that mean it is evolving pronoun like attributes? Like many grammatical phenomena, it is slightly different from everything else in its class? Is the fact that it sometimes feels like a pronoun irrelevant? =20 Craig =20 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" =20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ =20 =20 =20 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C528A4.E824161B Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Craig,

What you’ve come close to = saying, and what needs to be emphasized in this discussion among teachers, is = that this is a case where it doesn’t matter a lot which grammatical analysis = we teach to UG grammar students or how we deal with it in writing = classes. I agree that pedagogical needs sometimes trump analytic validity. No harm = is done to students at that level by calling it a pronoun or a conjunction. I = do the latter because I know it to be true and I’ve developed materials = to support students as they learn the = analysis.

I haven’t ordered = H&P’s student book yet but I plan to. And I look forward to seeing = yours.

Herb

Herb,
I will check it out. Over the weekend, I have = reflected on how much of my feeling for this may be influenced by writing and editing choices and the notion that which and that sometimes replace each other depending on restricitve or nonrestrictive nature of the clause. = The notion that you can't use "that" for nonrestrictive is = certainly skewered by the fact that it is sometimes a subordinator in a content = clause and which is not an = option. That kind of thinking (frame of reference) tends to make me see that as pronoun in one case and subordinator in the other. But I'm less and less entrenched.
We are in hearty agreement, I think, about the = nuances of that in these different kinds of structures. Classification = into different categories is certainly something understandable. If I = stick to pronoun, it might be for ease in teaching and ease in copy editing.
I just got H & P's Students Introduction to English = Grammar (from Cambridge.). Depsite the fact that my own book (soon to hit the real world !) = will compete, I'm looking forward to looking it over. We can't have enough = good grammar books, and a rising tide will float us all.
Thanks, as always, for your patience with my = questions.

Craig
Stahlke, Herbert F.W. = wrote:

Craig,

Here are = the rules governing the occurrence of "that" in content = clauses, quoting most of the time from Huddleston&Pullum = (652-654):

"That" must appear = if
a} when = the content clause is subject or otherwise precedes the matrix = predicator
b) the = content clause is adjunct, as = in

He = appealed to us to bring his case to the attention of the authorities = that justice might be done.

c) when = the content clause is complelemtn to comparative = "that"/"as", as = in

I'd = rather (that) he hired a taxi than that he drove my = car.

"That" must be omitted when the = content clause is embedded within an unbounded dependency in such a way = that its subject is reallized by a = gap:

optional = in She thinks (that) Max is the = ringleader.
excluded = in Who does she thing ___ is the = ringleader?

In other = cases there are a variety of conditions governing deletability that I = won't enumerate here.

H&P = also lay out the conditions for the deletion of "that" in = relative clauses (pp. 1054-6).

"That" can't be deleted if the = relativized element is the subject of the relative clause, as in = "The car that 0 hit us was = Ed's".

"That" can't be deleted if it is = not adjacent to the subject, as in "I found I needed a file that = only the day before I had sent to be = shredded."

"That" can't be deleted in = supplementary (their term for non-restrictive) = relatives.

"That" can't be deleted if the RC = is extraposed, as in "Something came up that I hadn't = predicted."

You're = right that the conditions governing deletion in the two structures, = content vs. relative clauses. However, I think this is a function = of the grammar of the two types of clause, not a result of there being = two different thats.

By the = way, H&P also give an interesting set of reasons, beyond and better = than those I've given, for why "that" is not a pronoun in = relative clauses but is rather a subordinator. But the arguments = are pretty detailed and you're better off going to H&P pp. 1056-7 = yourself for them.

Herb

Herb,

OK. = You pretty much got me now on subject deletion. But it does still = seem to me that the deletion rules for content clauses are different = than for relatives, and that acts much like which and who when these = deletion decisions come into play. I guess I'm holding out for the = point that it's more than the influence of traditional grammar that = keeps some of us thinking that acts enough like which and who to be more = than just a routine complementizer in certain instances. The = question isn't so much whether I can follow and accept the argument as = it is that I still find this way of looking at it = counterintuitive. As Richard said in an earlier post, if it feels = like a pronoun, wouldn't it be a pronoun? If we can substitute it = for which in some instances, does that mean it is evolving pronoun like = attributes? Like many grammatical phenomena, it is slightly = different from everything else in its = class?
    Is the fact that it = sometimes feels like a pronoun = irrelevant?

Craig

To join = or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at:
     http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and = select "Join or leave the = list"

Visit = ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

=

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C528A4.E824161B-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:36:13 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__PartCDEEB77D.0__=" --=__PartCDEEB77D.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herb, Thank you for going to the trouble to quote H&P so thoroughly. It is a convincing and persuasive argument! My mental block was in accepting the connective as a relative subordinator without the added baggage involved in pronominalization. Thinking of pronouns as the result of a process had trapped my thinking into supposing many, many varieties of the process, beyond what would actually be necessary for a concise description. BTW: the second sentence is a bit awkward logically. The use of that is in fact wider than the use of relative pronouns, and, thank goodness, is not conditional on it being a pronoun at all! Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/12/2005 11:17:33 PM >>> Here's the H&P argument that relative that is not a pronoun (1056-7). I'll paraphrase where I can. "Wide range of antecedent types and relativized elements If that were a pronoun, its ue would be much wider than that of the uncontroversial relative pronouns, or indeed of any pro-form at all in language. Compare:" (sentences quoted, number and comparison formats changed from small Roman) 1. They gave the prize to the girl [that spoke first]. =who 2. Have you seen the book [that she was reading]? =which 3. He was due to leave the day [that she arrived]. =when 4. He followed her to every town [that she went]. =where 5. That's not the reason [that she resigned]. =why 6. I was impressed by the way [that she controlled the crowd]. =*how 7. It wasn't to you [that I was referring]. no wh form 8. She seems to be the happiest [that she has ever been]. no wh form . . . "Instead of proposing a pro-form with such an exceptional range of use, we are saying that that-relatives do not contain any overt pro-form linked to the antecedent; they simply have an anaphoric gap, like bare relatives." "Lack of upward percolation There are no that-relatives matching wh-relatives with a complex relative phrase: the woman [whose turn it was] *the woman [that's turn it was] the knife [with which he cut it] *the knife [with that he cut it]" If that were a pronoun we'd have to specify that it can't take a possessive and that it can't occur as the object of a preposition unless that preposition is stranded. These strict limitations contrast strongly with the versatility that (1-8) indicate. But if "that" is a subordinator, then these limitations are predicted naturally by the analysis: subordinators don't behave in either way. "Finiteness" That-relatives are always finite, as are the declarative content clauses introduced by "that". Thus the only bare relative that can't be introduced by "that" is the infinitival relative: a knife to cut it with vs. *a knife that to cut it with. This is predicted naturally by the conjunction analysis but requires a special rule under the pronoun analysis. "Omissibility" "That" is omissible in both relative clauses and content clauses. The conditions for deletion differ between the two, but in both structures omissibility is governed by the need to mark the beginning of the clause to avoid parsing problems. "And in both cases, 'that' is more readily omitted in simple structures than in complex ones. There is no pro-form in English that is systematically omissible under remotely similar conditions." That's their argument. Their first, third, and fourth arguments go beyond those that I've raised. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Bruce D. Despain Sent: Sat 3/12/2005 9:11 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that Herb, You say that February must be coreferential to its head. Doesn't that make it a pronoun? My impulse was to analyze it allowing that the head was an article-like properness in the specific February. What I overlooked was a second complication of personification in the matrix, which may have affected the choice of connective. Let's try it with a definite noun (distorted content, however). (1) The treasurer, that in other companies held the responsibility to make deals, in this company kept funds tight. (2) The treasurer, who in other companies held the responsibility to make deals, in this company kept funds tight. In (1) the predicate of the matrix seems to be about the position, in (2) the person. The fact that in the dependent clause the referent is generic and in the matrix specific, does not seem to affect the choice of connective after all. So when we say (3), it seems a bit odd. We can't personify well with "which." (3) ?February, which in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. With the other example of the supplementary relative we agreed on the antecedent. I think it is significant that the reference seems to be to instincts already mentioned previously, that indeed there is a demonstrative or at least pronominal aspect to the connective being used. The supplementary nature would then have to do with the missing antecedent as in (4). (4) She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts, (the ones) that I had tried--and failed--to stifle. Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:04 PM Subject: Re: which and that Bruce, I do differ with you on your analysis of the February sentence. I can't see how February can be a common noun in the RC since it must be coreferential to its head. The only difference I see in the two uses is that the head is specific while the coreferent, which is 0, is generic. But it's proper in both cases. In the second sentence, I agree that not all the son's instincts are in play, just his solitary ones, but here I don't read a specific/generic contrast. They're both specific. I'm puzzled also by the domain of the reference of "that" being of article scope rather than of NP scope. I wonder if the demonstrative "that" is interfering here. But we remain pretty much apart on the issue. And I think the problem is a default claim that relative that is pronominal. That claim has to be argued for, given the close similarity of relative that, I would say identity, to conjunctive that. Herb Herb, Thank you for your patience in helping me out. Your points are well taken. I'm still a little uncomfortable about melding (2) and (3). The nature of the "pronoun" of (3) seems to turn on the restrictive/non-restrictive opposition. The two examples of non-restrictive clauses are problematic for me and may deserve a more careful analysis. Let me work this out. February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. In this sentence the name of the month is proper, if it is referring to the one month of the year with that name. When the author brings into consideration the other years, the noun becomes common. In the dependent clause the noun is common. In the main clause it is proper. The proper noun being fully defined in the main clause cannot be identified better by adding an adjective clause. So the clause is indeed non-restrictive by the normal definition of modification. However, the dependent clause is complementing the definiteness of the proper noun of the main clause. This is the same function that the content clause has as an "appositive." So they have used the term "supplementary relative" for a complement. I still think they are right when they call it "relative." I assume you differ there. It now seems to be a "relative-pro-article." She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. I think it is clear from a careful reading of this sentence that the author did not intend that the first person be understood as trying to stifle all of her son's instincts. The author is talking about some of her son's instincts, namely those that the first person had tried to stifle. Paratactic paraphrase may help to display this. First the non-restrictive interpretation: She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts I had tried--and failed-to stifle these instincts. Now the restrictive interpretation: I had tried--and failed-to stifle (certain ones of) her son's instincts. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of these instincts. My impression is that the difficulty arises when the strict interpretation of the noun phrase changes between the main clause and the dependent clause. Here it seems to be the specificity of the instincts that needs the complementation. Another vote for the "relative-pro-article." I hope these arguments don't go around in a circle again. I am convinced of the relative nature of that in adjective clauses, but its antecedent appears to be the normal domain of an article, rather than the full noun phrase. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/11/2005 8:27:47 AM >>> Bruce, I'm not sure yet that a three-way distinction works. The demonstrative we agree on. Here are the differences you outline between 2 and 3: 2 has only one morphological manifestation, occurs at the beginning of a content clause which may include appositives. 3 occurs at the beginning of an adjective clause, always restrictive, conjunction may be omitted Here are my problems. 3 also has only one morphological manifestation, so 2 and 3 are alike in that. 2 may be omitted, as in "I know it's late," so they're alike in that. Appositives (2) may start with "that". Huddleston&Pullum (p. 1052) note that, in what they call "supplementary relatives", their term for non-restrictives, "that" is allowed, as in February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's insticnts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. 2 and 3 are thus alike in appositives may start with "that". That fact that one kind of that-clause identifies and another classifies is not a function of the "that" but of distinction between complement and modifier, which is why I'm uncomfortable with noun clauses after verbs, nouns, and adjectives as appositives. They're complements, not modifiers, and appositives are modifiers. Your claim that "(3)is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted" begs the question. It assumes that (3) is a pronoun, but there is no evidence to support this claim. That-relatives in English, like relatives in a lot of languages, involve deletion of the embedded coreferent. In some complex cases a resumptive pronoun shows up, although English typically doesn't like resumptives. But consider Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote *0/it. Deletion would result in an island constraint violation. The resumptive, while inelegant, makes the sentence grammatical. The fact that a pronoun can appear in its in situ position is pretty strong evidence that "that" isn't the pronoun. The that of a that-relative is identical to the that of a noun clause. It's deletable, it's morphologically invariant, and it doesn't occur in places where a pronoun can, like after a preposition. 2 and 3 are indistinguishable. Herb Herb, Maybe Occam (Ockham) would object, but I don't have a problem with three "that"s. 1) The demonstrative. This appears before nouns. It also has a pronoun form for use without the noun. There are four distinct morphological instances of the demonstrative: this, these, that, those. 2) The conjunction for a noun clause. This is the variety of noun clause often called a content clause. There is only one morphological manifestation. The noun clause may appear in virtually all the functions of a noun. The appositive (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion. 3) The conjunction for an adjective clause. This is the variety of adjective clause used to identify rather than describe or classify. It is always restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in this kind of clause. The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The idea of my last post is that you could argue that the conjunction of the noun clause (2) can be seen as being used as a pronoun as the connective for the adjective clause (3). The morphology of (2) and (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: (2) is independent of the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in its clause as a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent clause formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the stretch that one might be justified in calling (3) a pronominalized version of (2). It is of some interest here with regard to pronunciation that the conjunction than was often indistinguishable from then in 17th Century England and is still so in many dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative adverb of the degree clause while the second is either a relative adverb of a temporal clause (subordinate clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate clause). The second form is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. Thus we have three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as that, but here they are adverbs. Hope this helps. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM >>> Bruce, Interesting arguments! Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and also reports and describes the use of "as" to introduce a relative clause, as in cases like "not as many as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants to". You're right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the question of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. But consider the alternative. If my arguments don't apply to relative "that", then we have THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that introduces noun clauses, the demonstrative pronoun, and the relative "that". But the relative "that" behaves morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like the demonstrative, so there's little reason for positing the third. "Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"? I like that. Just think the potential it gives us as a model for naming lexical categories! Herb Herb, Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that certain adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with a pronoun. In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so maybe it doesn't help after all. John is taller than George. John is taller than George is. John is taller than George is tall. The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing John's height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing that the -er is referring to, the degree of John's tallness. Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it isn't the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first three points of the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a "pronominalized subordinating conjunction." Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>> Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" in I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__PartCDEEB77D.0__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Herb,

Thank you for going to the trouble to quote H&P so = thoroughly. It is a convincing and persuasive argument! My = mental block was in accepting the connective as a relative subordinator = without the added baggage involved in pronominalization. Thinking of = pronouns as the result of a process had trapped my thinking into supposing = many, many varieties of the process, beyond what would actually b= e= necessary for a concise description. BTW: the second sentence is a = bit awkward logically. The use of that is in fact wider than= = the use of relative pronouns, and, thank goodness, is not conditional = on it being a pronoun at all!

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/12/2005 11:17:33 PM = >>>

Here's the H&P argument that relative tha= t= is not a pronoun (1056-7). I'll paraphrase where I can.

"Wide= = range of antecedent types and relativized elements
If that were a = pronoun, its ue would be much wider than that of the uncontroversial = relative pronouns, or indeed of any pro-form at all in language. = Compare:" (sentences quoted, number and comparison formats changed = =66rom small Roman)
1. They gave the prize to the girl [that spoke = =66irst]. =3Dwho
2. Have you seen the book [that she was = reading]=3F =3Dwhich
3. He was due to leave the day [that she = arrived]. =3Dwhen
4. He followed her to every town [that she = went]. =3Dwhere
5. That's not the reason [that she resigned]. = ;= =3Dwhy
6. I was impressed by the way [that she controlled the = crowd]. =3D*how
7. It wasn't to you [that I was referring]. = no wh form
8. She seems to be the happiest [that she has ever = been]. no wh form
.
.
.
"Instead of proposing a pro-form = with such an exceptional range of use, we are saying that that-relatives do= = not contain any overt pro-form linked to the antecedent; they simply have a= n= anaphoric gap, like bare relatives."

"Lack of upward = percolation
There are no that-relatives matching wh-relatives with a = complex relative phrase:
the woman [whose turn it = was]      *the woman [that's turn it was]
the = knife [with which he cut it]   *the knife [with that he cut = it]"
If that were a pronoun we'd have to specify that it can't take a = possessive and that it can't occur as the object of a preposition unless = that preposition is stranded. These strict limitations contrast = strongly with the versatility that (1-8) indicate. But if "that" is a= = subordinator, then these limitations are predicted naturally by the = analysis: subordinators don't behave in either = way.

"Finiteness"
That-relatives are always finite, as are the = declarative content clauses introduced by "that". Thus the only bare = relative that can't be introduced by "that" is the infinitival = relative: a knife to cut it with vs. *a knife that to cut it = with. This is predicted naturally by the conjunction analysis but = requires a special rule under the pronoun = analysis.

"Omissibility"
"That" is omissible in both relative = clauses and content clauses. The conditions for deletion differ = between the two, but in both structures omissibility is governed by the nee= d= to mark the beginning of the clause to avoid parsing problems. "And = in both cases, 'that' is more readily omitted in simple structures than in = complex ones. There is no pro-form in English that is systematically = omissible under remotely similar conditions."

That's their = argument. Their first, third, and fourth arguments go beyond those = that I've raised.

Herb

-----Original = Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behal= =66= of Bruce D. Despain
Sent: Sat 3/12/2005 9:11 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Herb,

You say that February must be coreferential to its= = head. Doesn't that make
it a pronoun=3F My impulse was to = analyze it allowing that the head was an
article-like properness in the = specific February. What I overlooked was a
second complication of = personification in the matrix, which may have
affected the choice of = connective. Let's try it with a definite noun
(distorted content, = however).

(1) The treasurer, that in other companies held the = responsibility to make
deals, in this company kept funds tight.
(2) = The treasurer, who in other companies held the responsibility to = make
deals, in this company kept funds tight.

In (1) the predicat= e= of the matrix seems to be about the position, in (2)
the person. = The fact that in the dependent clause the referent is generic
and in the= = matrix specific, does not seem to affect the choice of connective
after = all. So when we say (3), it seems a bit odd. We can't personify= = well
with "which."

(3) =3FFebruary, which in other years held = intimations of spring, this year
prolonged the bitter = weather.

With the other example of the supplementary relative we = agreed on the
antecedent. I think it is significant that the = reference seems to be to
instincts already mentioned previously, that = indeed there is a demonstrative
or at least pronominal aspect to the = connective being used. The
supplementary nature would then have to= = do with the missing antecedent as in
(4).

(4) She had long been = accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's
instincts, (the ones) tha= t= I had tried--and failed--to stifle.

Bruce

----- Original = Message -----
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." = <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: = =46riday, March 11, 2005 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: which and = that

Bruce,

I do differ with you on your analysis of the = =46ebruary sentence. I can't see
how February can be a common noun= = in the RC since it must be coreferential
to its head. The only = difference I see in the two uses is that the head is
specific while the = coreferent, which is 0, is generic. But it's proper in
both = cases.

In the second sentence, I agree that not all the son's = instincts are in
play, just his solitary ones, but here I don't read a = specific/generic
contrast. They're both specific.

I'm = puzzled also by the domain of the reference of "that" being of = article
scope rather than of NP scope. I wonder if the = demonstrative "that" is
interfering here.

But we remain pretty = much apart on the issue. And I think the problem is a
default clai= m= that relative that is pronominal. That claim has to be argued
for= ,= given the close similarity of relative that, I would say identity, = to
conjunctive that.

Herb

Herb,

Thank you for your = patience in helping me out. Your points are well taken.
I'm still = a= little uncomfortable about melding (2) and (3). The nature = of
the
"pronoun" of (3) seems to turn on the = restrictive/non-restrictive
opposition.
The two examples of = non-restrictive clauses are problematic for me and may
deserve a more = careful analysis. Let me work this out.

February, that in othe= r= years held intimations of spring, this year
prolonged
the bitter = weather.

In this sentence the name of the month is proper, if it is = referring to the
one
month of the year with that name. When the= = author brings into consideration
the
other years, the noun becomes = common. In the dependent clause the noun is
common.
In the main= = clause it is proper. The proper noun being fully defined in = the
main clause cannot be identified better by adding an adjective = clause. So
the
clause is indeed non-restrictive by the normal = definition of modification.
However, the dependent clause is = complementing the definiteness of the
proper
noun of the main = clause. This is the same function that the content clause
has
a= s= an "appositive." So they have used the term "supplementary relative"= = =66or
a
complement. I still think they are right when they call= = it "relative." I
assume you differ there. It now seems to be= = a "relative-pro-article."

She had long been accustomed to the = solitary nature of her son's instincts,
that I had tried--and failed-to = stifle.

I think it is clear from a careful reading of this sentence = that the author
did
not intend that the first person be understood as= = trying to stifle all of
her
son's instincts. The author is = talking about some of her son's instincts,
namely those that the first = person had tried to stifle. Paratactic
paraphrase
may help to = display this. First the non-restrictive interpretation:

She ha= d= long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts
I ha= d= tried--and failed-to stifle these instincts.

Now the restrictive = interpretation:

I had tried--and failed-to stifle (certain ones of) = her son's instincts.
She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature= = of these instincts.

My impression is that the difficulty arises when= = the strict interpretation
of
the noun phrase changes between the main= = clause and the dependent clause.
Here
it seems to be the specificity = of the instincts that needs the
complementation.
Another vote for the= = "relative-pro-article."

I hope these arguments don't go around in a = circle again. I am convinced of
the relative nature of that in = adjective clauses, but its antecedent appears
to
be the normal domain= = of an article, rather than the full noun = phrase.

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/11/2005 8:27:47= = AM >>>

Bruce,

I'm not sure yet that a three-way = distinction works. The demonstrative we
agree on. Here are = the differences you outline between 2 and 3:

2 has only one = morphological manifestation, occurs at the beginning of a
content clause= = which may include appositives.

3 occurs at the beginning of an = adjective clause, always restrictive,
conjunction may be = omitted

Here are my problems. 3 also has only one morphologica= l= manifestation, so 2
and 3 are alike in that. 2 may be omitted, as= = in "I know it's late," so
they're
alike in that. Appositives (2= )= may start with "that". Huddleston&Pullum
(p.
1052) note = that, in what they call "supplementary relatives", their term = =66or
non-restrictives, "that" is allowed, as in

February, that i= n= other years held intimations of spring, this year
prolonged
the = bitter weather.

She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature = of her son's insticnts,
that I had tried--and failed-to stifle.

2= = and 3 are thus alike in appositives may start with "that".

That fact= = that one kind of that-clause identifies and another classifies = is
not
a function of the "that" but of distinction between complement= = and modifier,
which is why I'm uncomfortable with noun clauses after = verbs, nouns, and
adjectives as appositives. They're complements, = not modifiers, and
appositives
are modifiers.

Your claim that = "(3)is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be
omitted" begs = the question. It assumes that (3) is a pronoun, but there = is
no
evidence to support this claim. That-relatives in English= ,= like relatives
in a
lot of languages, involve deletion of the = embedded coreferent. In some
complex
cases a resumptive pronoun= = shows up, although English typically doesn't like
resumptives. But= = consider

Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote = *0/it.

Deletion would result in an island constraint violation. = ;= The resumptive,
while
inelegant, makes the sentence = grammatical. The fact that a pronoun can
appear
in its in situ = position is pretty strong evidence that "that" isn't the
pronoun.
The= = that of a that-relative is identical to the that of a noun clause. = It's
deletable, it's morphologically invariant, and it doesn't occur in = places
where
a pronoun can, like after a preposition. 2 and 3 = are indistinguishable.

Herb

Herb,

Maybe Occam (Ockham)= = would object, but I don't have a problem with = three
"that"s.

1) The demonstrative. This appears = before nouns. It also has a pronoun
form
for use without the = noun. There are four distinct morphological instances = of
the
demonstrative: this, these, that, those.

2) The = conjunction for a noun clause. This is the variety of noun = clause
often called a content clause. There is only one = morphological
manifestation.
The noun clause may appear in virtually = all the functions of a noun. The
appositive (adjectival) was one = =66unction under recent discussion.

3) The conjunction for an = adjective clause. This is the variety of
adjective
clause used = to identify rather than describe or classify. It is = always
restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in this = kind of clause.

The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The = idea of my last post is that
you
could argue that the conjunction of = the noun clause (2) can be seen as being
used as a pronoun as the = connective for the adjective clause (3). The
morphology of (2) and= = (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: (2)
is
independent o= =66= the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an
intergral
part= ,= yet as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in = its
clause
as
a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in a= n= independent clause
formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. = Hence, the stretch that one
might
be
justified in calling (3) a = pronominalized version of (2).

It is of some interest here with = regard to pronunciation that the
conjunction
than was often = indistinguishable from then in 17th Century England and is
still so in = many dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative = adverb
of
the degree clause while the second is either a relative = adverb of a temporal
clause (subordinate clause) or an illative = conjunction (co-ordinate clause).
The second form is also much like the = demonstrative as an adverb. Thus we
have
three morpho-syntactic= = =66orms of similar syntactic distribution as that, but
here
they are = adverbs.

Hope this helps.

Bruce

>>> = [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM = >>>

Bruce,

Interesting arguments! Jespersen = treats comparatives similarly and also
reports and describes the use of = "as" to introduce a relative clause, as in
cases like
"not as many as= = I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants to".

You're = right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to = the
question
of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative = pronoun. But consider the
alternative. If my arguments don't= = apply to relative "that", then we have
THREE, not two "thats", the = conjunction that introduces noun clauses, the
demonstrative pronoun, and= = the relative "that". But the relative = "that"
behaves
morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like th= e= demonstrative, so
there's little reason for positing the = third.

"Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"=3F I like = that. Just think the
potential it gives us as a model for naming = lexical categories!

Herb

Herb,

Perhaps your argument = could be made stronger if you mentioned that certain
adverb clauses are = also relative, without having to be connected with a
pronoun.
In this= = case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, = so
maybe
it doesn't help after all.

John is taller than = George.
John is taller than George is.
John is taller than George is = tall.

The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height,= = comparing
John's
height to it. It is relative by referring to = the same thing that the -er is
referring to, the degree of John's = tallness.

Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to= = show that it
isn't
the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least = in the first three points
of
the previous post. Perhaps we can = view it as a = "pronominalized
subordinating
conjunction."

Bruce

>&= gt;>= [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>>

Craig,

I= = don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much= = is
pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The = morpho-syntactic evidence is
overwhelming that relative "that" is not a = pronoun and is a subordinating
conjunction, that there is, in fact, no = difference between the "thats" in

I know that it's = raining.

and

The rain that's falling now will flood the = =66ields.

They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in = relative clauses is a
pronoun
is a claim grounded in a school grammar= = tradition that is seriously flawed
in
many ways, this being one of = them. When you say "that is a pronoun in some
camps and a = complementizer in others when it functions within a relative
clause," yo= u= beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no = =66unction
within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is= = not subject, object, OP,
or
anything else. Those relationships = are marked by the absence of a noun
phrase
in the appropriate = position, not by "that".

Content clauses and relative clauses are = similar in that they are both
embedded
sentences. They differ i= n= that content clauses are complements of verbs,
nouns,
or adjectives = and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is = the
modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited = by
relative
clauses but not by content clauses.

I don't think = the problem of appositives has anything to do with the
analysis
of = "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the = term
appositive. Here are some examples.

1. My brother Bill= = ...
2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ...
3. = Bill, who lives in Chicago, ...
4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, = ...
5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ...
6. The idea that = Bill lives in Chicago ...
etc.

At best, appositive is a function,= = not a structure, and I'm not entirely
sure
that it's a function. = ;= I think rather that it's a traditional term used to
describe a disparat= e= variety of structures all of which occur after nouns.
It
has some = usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives = doesn't
bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they'r= e= different
structures, complements to their head nouns rather than = modifiers, and
calling
them appositives just confuses = matters.

But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms = get us.

Herb
Herb,
    I know we have gone back= = and forth on this one before, and I'm still not
convinced, but I think i= t= may be important to clarify that there seems to be
agreement that there= = is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its
various forms, and = which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses),
but
that is= = a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when = it
functions
within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a = complementizer in
noun
clauses precisely because it clearly has no = role within the noun clause.
    I'm wondering whether yo= u= see any difference between a content clause
structure and relative = clause structure. (Are these the same structures, but
differing in = context by function=3F) The argument for these as = appositional
seems
to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that = =66unctions differently. Is
the
notion of appositional noun clause = somewhat dependent on the
misunderstanding
of
the role of that as = pronoun, at least as you see it=3F Should we discard = the
category=3F

Craig

To join or leave this LISTSERV list,= = please visit the list's web interface
at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

-------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------
--
Th= is= message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for = the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is = addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------
--

To= join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this= = LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

-------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------
--
Th= is= message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for = the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is = addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------
--

To= join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this= = LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

-------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------
--
Th= is= message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for = the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is = addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------
--

To= join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this= = LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

--
No viru= s= found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: = 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: = 3/9/05

--
No virus found in this outgoing = message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database= := 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05

To join or leave this LISTSERV list,= = please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this= = LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at:
     http://listserv.muoh= io.edu/archives/ateg.html
and= select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__PartCDEEB77D.0__=-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:23:58 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000703060506090901000508" --------------000703060506090901000508 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb, I have already begun to mention that there's an alternative=20 analysis. My students are now getting used to the idea that there's=20 more to cover than will show up on the test. The pleasure in these=20 disagreements is that we look at a problem from different directions and = get a deeper and richer understanding. =20 I'm off to San Francisco, where I hope I can be a worthy ambassador=20 for the cause. Craig Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote: > Craig, > > =20 > > What you've come close to saying, and what needs to be emphasized in=20 > this discussion among teachers, is that this is a case where it=20 > doesn't matter a lot which grammatical analysis we teach to UG grammar = > students or how we deal with it in writing classes. I agree that=20 > pedagogical needs sometimes trump analytic validity. No harm is done=20 > to students at that level by calling it a pronoun or a conjunction. I = > do the latter because I know it to be true and I've developed=20 > materials to support students as they learn the analysis. > > =20 > > I haven't ordered H&P's student book yet but I plan to. And I look=20 > forward to seeing yours. > > =20 > > Herb > > =20 > > =20 > > Herb, > I will check it out. Over the weekend, I have reflected on how=20 > much of my feeling for this may be influenced by writing and editing=20 > choices and the notion that which and that sometimes replace each=20 > other depending on restricitve or nonrestrictive nature of the clause. = > The notion that you can't use "that" for nonrestrictive is certainly=20 > skewered by the fact that it is sometimes a subordinator in a content=20 > clause and which is not an option. That kind of thinking (frame of=20 > reference) tends to make me see that as pronoun in one case and=20 > subordinator in the other. But I'm less and less entrenched. > We are in hearty agreement, I think, about the nuances of that=20 > in these different kinds of structures. Classification into different = > categories is certainly something understandable. If I stick to=20 > pronoun, it might be for ease in teaching and ease in copy editing. > I just got H & P's Students Introduction to English Grammar (from=20 > Cambridge.). Depsite the fact that my own book (soon to hit the real=20 > world !) will compete, I'm looking forward to looking it over. We=20 > can't have enough good grammar books, and a rising tide will float us a= ll. > Thanks, as always, for your patience with my questions. > > Craig > Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote: > >Craig, > >=20 > >Here are the rules governing the occurrence of "that" in content clauses= , quoting most of the time from Huddleston&Pullum (652-654): > >=20 > >"That" must appear if > >a} when the content clause is subject or otherwise precedes the matrix p= redicator > >b) the content clause is adjunct, as in > >=20 > >He appealed to us to bring his case to the attention of the authorities = that justice might be done. > >=20 > >c) when the content clause is complelemtn to comparative "that"/"as", as= in > >=20 > >I'd rather (that) he hired a taxi than that he drove my car. > >=20 > >"That" must be omitted when the content clause is embedded within an unb= ounded dependency in such a way that its subject is reallized by a gap: > >=20 > >optional in She thinks (that) Max is the ringleader. > >excluded in Who does she thing ___ is the ringleader? > >=20 > >In other cases there are a variety of conditions governing deletability = that I won't enumerate here. > >=20 > >H&P also lay out the conditions for the deletion of "that" in relative c= lauses (pp. 1054-6). > >=20 > >"That" can't be deleted if the relativized element is the subject of the= relative clause, as in "The car that 0 hit us was Ed's". > >=20 > >"That" can't be deleted if it is not adjacent to the subject, as in "I f= ound I needed a file that only the day before I had sent to be shredded."= > >=20 > >"That" can't be deleted in supplementary (their term for non-restrictive= ) relatives. > >=20 > >"That" can't be deleted if the RC is extraposed, as in "Something came u= p that I hadn't predicted." > >=20 > >You're right that the conditions governing deletion in the two structure= s, content vs. relative clauses. However, I think this is a function of = the grammar of the two types of clause, not a result of there being two d= ifferent thats. > >=20 > >By the way, H&P also give an interesting set of reasons, beyond and bett= er than those I've given, for why "that" is not a pronoun in relative cla= uses but is rather a subordinator. But the arguments are pretty detailed= and you're better off going to H&P pp. 1056-7 yourself for them. > >=20 > >Herb > >=20 > >Herb, > >=20 > >=20 > >OK. You pretty much got me now on subject deletion. But it does still = seem to me that the deletion rules for content clauses are different than= for relatives, and that acts much like which and who when these deletion= decisions come into play. I guess I'm holding out for the point that it= 's more than the influence of traditional grammar that keeps some of us t= hinking that acts enough like which and who to be more than just a routin= e complementizer in certain instances. The question isn't so much whethe= r I can follow and accept the argument as it is that I still find this wa= y of looking at it counterintuitive. As Richard said in an earlier post,= if it feels like a pronoun, wouldn't it be a pronoun? If we can substit= ute it for which in some instances, does that mean it is evolving pronoun= like attributes? Like many grammatical phenomena, it is slightly differ= ent from everything else in its class? > > Is the fact that it sometimes feels like a pronoun irrelevant? > >=20 > >Craig > >=20 > >To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interfa= ce at: > > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >and select "Join or leave the list" > >=20 > >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >=20 > > =20 > > =20 > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20 > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select = > "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this=20 > LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:=20 > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or=20 > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------000703060506090901000508 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herb,
I have already begun to mention that there's an alternative analysis. My students are now getting used to the idea that there's more to cover than will show up on the test. The pleasure in these disagreements is that we look at a problem from different directions and get a deeper and richer understanding.
I'm off to San Francisco, where I hope I can be a worthy ambassador for the cause.

Craig

Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:

[log in to unmask]">

Craig,

What you’ve come close to saying, and what needs to be emphasized in this discussion among teachers, is that this is a case where it doesn’t matter a lot which grammatical analysis we teach to UG grammar students or how we deal with it in writing classes. I agree that pedagogical needs sometimes trump analytic validity. No harm is done to students at that level by calling it a pronoun or a conjunction. I do the latter because I know it to be true and I’ve developed materials to support students as they learn the analysis.

I haven’t ordered H&P’s student book yet but I plan to. And I look forward to seeing yours.

Herb

Herb,
I will check it out. Over the weekend, I have reflected on how much of my feeling for this may be influenced by writing and editing choices and the notion that which and that sometimes replace each other depending on restricitve or nonrestrictive nature of the clause. The notion that you can't use "that" for nonrestrictive is certainly skewered by the fact that it is sometimes a subordinator in a content clause and which is not an option. That kind of thinking (frame of reference) tends to make me see that as pronoun in one case and subordinator in the other. But I'm less and less entrenched.
We are in hearty agreement, I think, about the nuances of that in these different kinds of structures. Classification into different categories is certainly something understandable. If I stick to pronoun, it might be for ease in teaching and ease in copy editing.
I just got H & P's Students Introduction to English Grammar (from Cambridge.). Depsite the fact that my own book (soon to hit the real world !) will compete, I'm looking forward to looking it over. We can't have enough good grammar books, and a rising tide will float us all.
Thanks, as always, for your patience with my questions.

Craig
Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:

Craig,

Here are the rules governing the occurrence of "that" in content clauses, quoting most of the time from Huddleston&Pullum (652-654):

"That" must appear if

a} when the content clause is subject or otherwise precedes the matrix predicator

b) the content clause is adjunct, as in

He appealed to us to bring his case to the attention of the authorities that justice might be done.

c) when the content clause is complelemtn to comparative "that"/"as", as in

I'd rather (that) he hired a taxi than that he drove my car.

"That" must be omitted when the content clause is embedded within an unbounded dependency in such a way that its subject is reallized by a gap:

optional in She thinks (that) Max is the ringleader.

excluded in Who does she thing ___ is the ringleader?

In other cases there are a variety of conditions governing deletability that I won't enumerate here.

H&P also lay out the conditions for the deletion of "that" in relative clauses (pp. 1054-6).

"That" can't be deleted if the relativized element is the subject of the relative clause, as in "The car that 0 hit us was Ed's".

"That" can't be deleted if it is not adjacent to the subject, as in "I found I needed a file that only the day before I had sent to be shredded."

"That" can't be deleted in supplementary (their term for non-restrictive) relatives.

"That" can't be deleted if the RC is extraposed, as in "Something came up that I hadn't predicted."

You're right that the conditions governing deletion in the two structures, content vs. relative clauses. However, I think this is a function of the grammar of the two types of clause, not a result of there being two different thats.

By the way, H&P also give an interesting set of reasons, beyond and better than those I've given, for why "that" is not a pronoun in relative clauses but is rather a subordinator. But the arguments are pretty detailed and you're better off going to H&P pp. 1056-7 yourself for them.

Herb

Herb,

OK. You pretty much got me now on subject deletion. But it does still seem to me that the deletion rules for content clauses are different than for relatives, and that acts much like which and who when these deletion decisions come into play. I guess I'm holding out for the point that it's more than the influence of traditional grammar that keeps some of us thinking that acts enough like which and who to be more than just a routine complementizer in certain instances. The question isn't so much whether I can follow and accept the argument as it is that I still find this way of looking at it counterintuitive. As Richard said in an earlier post, if it feels like a pronoun, wouldn't it be a pronoun? If we can substitute it for which in some instances, does that mean it is evolving pronoun like attributes? Like many grammatical phenomena, it is slightly different fro m everything else in its class?

    Is the fact that it sometimes feels like a pronoun irrelevant?

Craig

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:

     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------000703060506090901000508-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:51:27 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C52966.0D346D2B" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C52966.0D346D2B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here's another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme's Parts of Speech and Accidence this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in a section headed "Relative Pronouns with Antecedent": "These relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath's A Grammar of the English Language (HFWS]." I suspect we could get into an interesting discussion of "as", "but", and "but that". Herb ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:36 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Herb, =20 Thank you for going to the trouble to quote H&P so thoroughly. It is a convincing and persuasive argument! My mental block was in accepting the connective as a relative subordinator without the added baggage involved in pronominalization. Thinking of pronouns as the result of a process had trapped my thinking into supposing many, many varieties of the process, beyond what would actually be necessary for a concise description. BTW: the second sentence is a bit awkward logically. The use of that is in fact wider than the use of relative pronouns, and, thank goodness, is not conditional on it being a pronoun at all! =20 =20 Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/12/2005 11:17:33 PM >>> Here's the H&P argument that relative that is not a pronoun (1056-7). I'll paraphrase where I can. "Wide range of antecedent types and relativized elements If that were a pronoun, its ue would be much wider than that of the uncontroversial relative pronouns, or indeed of any pro-form at all in language. Compare:" (sentences quoted, number and comparison formats changed from small Roman) 1. They gave the prize to the girl [that spoke first]. =3Dwho 2. Have you seen the book [that she was reading]? =3Dwhich 3. He was due to leave the day [that she arrived]. =3Dwhen 4. He followed her to every town [that she went]. =3Dwhere 5. That's not the reason [that she resigned]. =3Dwhy 6. I was impressed by the way [that she controlled the crowd]. =3D*how 7. It wasn't to you [that I was referring]. no wh form 8. She seems to be the happiest [that she has ever been]. no wh form . . . "Instead of proposing a pro-form with such an exceptional range of use, we are saying that that-relatives do not contain any overt pro-form linked to the antecedent; they simply have an anaphoric gap, like bare relatives." "Lack of upward percolation There are no that-relatives matching wh-relatives with a complex relative phrase: the woman [whose turn it was] *the woman [that's turn it was] the knife [with which he cut it] *the knife [with that he cut it]" If that were a pronoun we'd have to specify that it can't take a possessive and that it can't occur as the object of a preposition unless that preposition is stranded. These strict limitations contrast strongly with the versatility that (1-8) indicate. But if "that" is a subordinator, then these limitations are predicted naturally by the analysis: subordinators don't behave in either way. "Finiteness" That-relatives are always finite, as are the declarative content clauses introduced by "that". Thus the only bare relative that can't be introduced by "that" is the infinitival relative: a knife to cut it with vs. *a knife that to cut it with. This is predicted naturally by the conjunction analysis but requires a special rule under the pronoun analysis. "Omissibility" "That" is omissible in both relative clauses and content clauses. The conditions for deletion differ between the two, but in both structures omissibility is governed by the need to mark the beginning of the clause to avoid parsing problems. "And in both cases, 'that' is more readily omitted in simple structures than in complex ones. There is no pro-form in English that is systematically omissible under remotely similar conditions." That's their argument. Their first, third, and fourth arguments go beyond those that I've raised. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Bruce D. Despain Sent: Sat 3/12/2005 9:11 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that Herb, You say that February must be coreferential to its head. Doesn't that make it a pronoun? My impulse was to analyze it allowing that the head was an article-like properness in the specific February. What I overlooked was a second complication of personification in the matrix, which may have affected the choice of connective. Let's try it with a definite noun (distorted content, however). (1) The treasurer, that in other companies held the responsibility to make deals, in this company kept funds tight. (2) The treasurer, who in other companies held the responsibility to make deals, in this company kept funds tight. In (1) the predicate of the matrix seems to be about the position, in (2) the person. The fact that in the dependent clause the referent is generic and in the matrix specific, does not seem to affect the choice of connective after all. So when we say (3), it seems a bit odd. We can't personify well with "which." (3) ?February, which in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. With the other example of the supplementary relative we agreed on the antecedent. I think it is significant that the reference seems to be to instincts already mentioned previously, that indeed there is a demonstrative or at least pronominal aspect to the connective being used. The supplementary nature would then have to do with the missing antecedent as in (4). (4) She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts, (the ones) that I had tried--and failed--to stifle. Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:04 PM Subject: Re: which and that Bruce, I do differ with you on your analysis of the February sentence. I can't see how February can be a common noun in the RC since it must be coreferential to its head. The only difference I see in the two uses is that the head is specific while the coreferent, which is 0, is generic. But it's proper in both cases. In the second sentence, I agree that not all the son's instincts are in play, just his solitary ones, but here I don't read a specific/generic contrast. They're both specific. I'm puzzled also by the domain of the reference of "that" being of article scope rather than of NP scope. I wonder if the demonstrative "that" is interfering here. But we remain pretty much apart on the issue. And I think the problem is a default claim that relative that is pronominal. That claim has to be argued for, given the close similarity of relative that, I would say identity, to conjunctive that. Herb Herb, Thank you for your patience in helping me out. Your points are well taken. I'm still a little uncomfortable about melding (2) and (3). The nature of the "pronoun" of (3) seems to turn on the restrictive/non-restrictive opposition. The two examples of non-restrictive clauses are problematic for me and may deserve a more careful analysis. Let me work this out. February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. In this sentence the name of the month is proper, if it is referring to the one month of the year with that name. When the author brings into consideration the other years, the noun becomes common. In the dependent clause the noun is common. In the main clause it is proper. The proper noun being fully defined in the main clause cannot be identified better by adding an adjective clause. So the clause is indeed non-restrictive by the normal definition of modification. However, the dependent clause is complementing the definiteness of the proper noun of the main clause. This is the same function that the content clause has as an "appositive." So they have used the term "supplementary relative" for a complement. I still think they are right when they call it "relative." I assume you differ there. It now seems to be a "relative-pro-article." She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. I think it is clear from a careful reading of this sentence that the author did not intend that the first person be understood as trying to stifle all of her son's instincts. The author is talking about some of her son's instincts, namely those that the first person had tried to stifle. Paratactic paraphrase may help to display this. First the non-restrictive interpretation: She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts I had tried--and failed-to stifle these instincts. Now the restrictive interpretation: I had tried--and failed-to stifle (certain ones of) her son's instincts. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of these instincts. My impression is that the difficulty arises when the strict interpretation of the noun phrase changes between the main clause and the dependent clause. Here it seems to be the specificity of the instincts that needs the complementation. Another vote for the "relative-pro-article." I hope these arguments don't go around in a circle again. I am convinced of the relative nature of that in adjective clauses, but its antecedent appears to be the normal domain of an article, rather than the full noun phrase. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/11/2005 8:27:47 AM >>> Bruce, I'm not sure yet that a three-way distinction works. The demonstrative we agree on. Here are the differences you outline between 2 and 3: 2 has only one morphological manifestation, occurs at the beginning of a content clause which may include appositives. 3 occurs at the beginning of an adjective clause, always restrictive, conjunction may be omitted Here are my problems. 3 also has only one morphological manifestation, so 2 and 3 are alike in that. 2 may be omitted, as in "I know it's late," so they're alike in that. Appositives (2) may start with "that". Huddleston&Pullum (p. 1052) note that, in what they call "supplementary relatives", their term for non-restrictives, "that" is allowed, as in February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year prolonged the bitter weather. She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's insticnts, that I had tried--and failed-to stifle. 2 and 3 are thus alike in appositives may start with "that". That fact that one kind of that-clause identifies and another classifies is not a function of the "that" but of distinction between complement and modifier, which is why I'm uncomfortable with noun clauses after verbs, nouns, and adjectives as appositives. They're complements, not modifiers, and appositives are modifiers. Your claim that "(3)is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted" begs the question. It assumes that (3) is a pronoun, but there is no evidence to support this claim. That-relatives in English, like relatives in a lot of languages, involve deletion of the embedded coreferent. In some complex cases a resumptive pronoun shows up, although English typically doesn't like resumptives. But consider Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote *0/it. Deletion would result in an island constraint violation. The resumptive, while inelegant, makes the sentence grammatical. The fact that a pronoun can appear in its in situ position is pretty strong evidence that "that" isn't the pronoun. The that of a that-relative is identical to the that of a noun clause. It's deletable, it's morphologically invariant, and it doesn't occur in places where a pronoun can, like after a preposition. 2 and 3 are indistinguishable. Herb Herb, Maybe Occam (Ockham) would object, but I don't have a problem with three "that"s. 1) The demonstrative. This appears before nouns. It also has a pronoun form for use without the noun. There are four distinct morphological instances of the demonstrative: this, these, that, those. 2) The conjunction for a noun clause. This is the variety of noun clause often called a content clause. There is only one morphological manifestation. The noun clause may appear in virtually all the functions of a noun. The appositive (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion. 3) The conjunction for an adjective clause. This is the variety of adjective clause used to identify rather than describe or classify. It is always restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in this kind of clause. The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The idea of my last post is that you could argue that the conjunction of the noun clause (2) can be seen as being used as a pronoun as the connective for the adjective clause (3). The morphology of (2) and (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: (2) is independent of the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in its clause as a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent clause formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the stretch that one might be justified in calling (3) a pronominalized version of (2). It is of some interest here with regard to pronunciation that the conjunction than was often indistinguishable from then in 17th Century England and is still so in many dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative adverb of the degree clause while the second is either a relative adverb of a temporal clause (subordinate clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate clause). The second form is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. Thus we have three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as that, but here they are adverbs. Hope this helps. Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM >>> Bruce, Interesting arguments! Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and also reports and describes the use of "as" to introduce a relative clause, as in cases like "not as many as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants to". You're right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the question of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. But consider the alternative. If my arguments don't apply to relative "that", then we have THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that introduces noun clauses, the demonstrative pronoun, and the relative "that". But the relative "that" behaves morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like the demonstrative, so there's little reason for positing the third. "Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"? I like that. Just think the potential it gives us as a model for naming lexical categories! Herb Herb, Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that certain adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with a pronoun. In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so maybe it doesn't help after all. John is taller than George. John is taller than George is. John is taller than George is tall. The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing John's height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing that the -er is referring to, the degree of John's tallness. Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it isn't the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first three points of the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a "pronominalized subordinating conjunction." Bruce >>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>> Craig, I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That much is pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic evidence is overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a subordinating conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" in I know that it's raining. and The rain that's falling now will flood the fields. They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously flawed in many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative clause has no function within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not subject, object, OP, or anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun phrase in the appropriate position, not by "that". Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of verbs, nouns, or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It is the modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by relative clauses but not by content clauses. I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term appositive. Here are some examples. 1. My brother Bill ... 2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ... 3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ... 4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ... 5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ... 6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ... etc. At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term used to describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after nouns. It has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives doesn't bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're different structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and calling them appositives just confuses matters. But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us. Herb Herb, I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still not convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems to be agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses), but that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer in noun clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause. I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content clause structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, but differing in context by function?) The argument for these as appositional seems to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. Is the notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard the category? Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- -- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- -- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C52966.0D346D2B Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here’s another take on = relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme’s Parts of Speech and Accidence this morning, on = another matter entirely, when I came across the following in a section headed = “Relative Pronouns with Antecedent”:

“These relative pronouns are = who, which, that, as, but, but that, but = what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath’s A Grammar of the English Language = (HFWS].”

I suspect we could get into an = interesting discussion of “as”, “but”, and “but = that”.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Bruce Despain
Sent: Monday, March 14, = 2005 10:36 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Herb,

Thank = you for going to the trouble to quote H&P so thoroughly. It is a = convincing and persuasive argument! My mental block was in accepting the = connective as a relative subordinator without the added baggage involved in pronominalization. Thinking of pronouns as the result of a process = had trapped my thinking into supposing many, many varieties of = the process, beyond what would actually be necessary for a concise = description. BTW: the second sentence is a bit awkward logically. The use of = that is in fact wider than the use of relative pronouns, and, thank = goodness, is not conditional on it being a pronoun at all! =

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/12/2005 11:17:33 PM = >>>

Here's the = H&P argument that relative that is not a pronoun (1056-7). I'll = paraphrase where I can.

"Wide range of antecedent types and relativized elements
If that were a pronoun, its ue would be much wider than that of the uncontroversial relative pronouns, or indeed of any pro-form at all in language. Compare:" (sentences quoted, number and = comparison formats changed from small Roman)
1. They gave the prize to the girl [that spoke first]. =3Dwho
2. Have you seen the book [that she was reading]? = =3Dwhich
3. He was due to leave the day [that she arrived]. =3Dwhen
4. He followed her to every town [that she went]. =3Dwhere
5. That's not the reason [that she resigned]. =3Dwhy
6. I was impressed by the way [that she controlled the crowd]. = =3D*how
7. It wasn't to you [that I was referring]. no wh form
8. She seems to be the happiest [that she has ever been]. no wh = form
.
.
.
"Instead of proposing a pro-form with such an exceptional range of = use, we are saying that that-relatives do not contain any overt pro-form linked = to the antecedent; they simply have an anaphoric gap, like bare relatives."

"Lack of upward percolation
There are no that-relatives matching wh-relatives with a complex = relative phrase:
the woman [whose turn it was]      *the woman = [that's turn it was]
the knife [with which he cut it]   *the knife [with that he = cut it]"
If that were a pronoun we'd have to specify that it can't take a = possessive and that it can't occur as the object of a preposition unless that = preposition is stranded. These strict limitations contrast strongly with the = versatility that (1-8) indicate. But if "that" is a subordinator, = then these limitations are predicted naturally by the analysis: = subordinators don't behave in either way.

"Finiteness"
That-relatives are always finite, as are the declarative content clauses introduced by "that". Thus the only bare relative that = can't be introduced by "that" is the infinitival relative: a = knife to cut it with vs. *a knife that to cut it with. This is predicted = naturally by the conjunction analysis but requires a special rule under the = pronoun analysis.

"Omissibility"
"That" is omissible in both relative clauses and content clauses. The conditions for deletion differ between the two, but = in both structures omissibility is governed by the need to mark the beginning of = the clause to avoid parsing problems. "And in both cases, 'that' = is more readily omitted in simple structures than in complex ones. There = is no pro-form in English that is systematically omissible under remotely = similar conditions."

That's their argument. Their first, third, and fourth arguments go = beyond those that I've raised.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar on behalf of Bruce D. Despain
Sent: Sat 3/12/2005 9:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and that

Herb,

You say that February must be coreferential to its head. Doesn't = that make
it a pronoun? My impulse was to analyze it allowing that the head = was an
article-like properness in the specific February. What I = overlooked was a
second complication of personification in the matrix, which may have
affected the choice of connective. Let's try it with a definite = noun
(distorted content, however).

(1) The treasurer, that in other companies held the responsibility to = make
deals, in this company kept funds tight.
(2) The treasurer, who in other companies held the responsibility to = make
deals, in this company kept funds tight.

In (1) the predicate of the matrix seems to be about the position, in = (2)
the person. The fact that in the dependent clause the referent is = generic
and in the matrix specific, does not seem to affect the choice of = connective
after all. So when we say (3), it seems a bit odd. We can't personify well
with "which."

(3) ?February, which in other years held intimations of spring, this = year
prolonged the bitter weather.

With the other example of the supplementary relative we agreed on = the
antecedent. I think it is significant that the reference seems to = be to
instincts already mentioned previously, that indeed there is a = demonstrative
or at least pronominal aspect to the connective being used. = The
supplementary nature would then have to do with the missing antecedent = as in
(4).

(4) She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's
instincts, (the ones) that I had tried--and failed--to stifle.

Bruce

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stahlke, Herbert = F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: which and that

Bruce,

I do differ with you on your analysis of the February sentence. I = can't see
how February can be a common noun in the RC since it must be = coreferential
to its head. The only difference I see in the two uses is that the = head is
specific while the coreferent, which is 0, is generic. But it's = proper in
both cases.

In the second sentence, I agree that not all the son's instincts are = in
play, just his solitary ones, but here I don't read a = specific/generic
contrast. They're both specific.

I'm puzzled also by the domain of the reference of "that" = being of article
scope rather than of NP scope. I wonder if the demonstrative "that" is
interfering here.

But we remain pretty much apart on the issue. And I think the = problem is a
default claim that relative that is pronominal. That claim has to = be argued
for, given the close similarity of relative that, I would say identity, = to
conjunctive that.

Herb

Herb,

Thank you for your patience in helping me out. Your points are = well taken.
I'm still a little uncomfortable about melding (2) and (3). The = nature of
the
"pronoun" of (3) seems to turn on the = restrictive/non-restrictive
opposition.
The two examples of non-restrictive clauses are problematic for me and = may
deserve a more careful analysis. Let me work this out.

February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year
prolonged
the bitter weather.

In this sentence the name of the month is proper, if it is referring to = the
one
month of the year with that name. When the author brings into consideration
the
other years, the noun becomes common. In the dependent clause the = noun is
common.
In the main clause it is proper. The proper noun being fully = defined in the
main clause cannot be identified better by adding an adjective = clause. So
the
clause is indeed non-restrictive by the normal definition of = modification.
However, the dependent clause is complementing the definiteness of = the
proper
noun of the main clause. This is the same function that the = content clause
has
as an "appositive." So they have used the term "supplementary relative" for
a
complement. I still think they are right when they call it "relative." I
assume you differ there. It now seems to be a "relative-pro-article."

She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = instincts,
that I had tried--and failed-to stifle.

I think it is clear from a careful reading of this sentence that the = author
did
not intend that the first person be understood as trying to stifle all = of
her
son's instincts. The author is talking about some of her son's = instincts,
namely those that the first person had tried to stifle. = Paratactic
paraphrase
may help to display this. First the non-restrictive = interpretation:

She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = instincts
I had tried--and failed-to stifle these instincts.

Now the restrictive interpretation:

I had tried--and failed-to stifle (certain ones of) her son's = instincts.
She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of these = instincts.

My impression is that the difficulty arises when the strict = interpretation
of
the noun phrase changes between the main clause and the dependent = clause.
Here
it seems to be the specificity of the instincts that needs the
complementation.
Another vote for the "relative-pro-article."

I hope these arguments don't go around in a circle again. I am = convinced of
the relative nature of that in adjective clauses, but its antecedent = appears
to
be the normal domain of an article, rather than the full noun = phrase.

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/11/2005 8:27:47 AM >>>

Bruce,

I'm not sure yet that a three-way distinction works. The = demonstrative we
agree on. Here are the differences you outline between 2 and = 3:

2 has only one morphological manifestation, occurs at the beginning of = a
content clause which may include appositives.

3 occurs at the beginning of an adjective clause, always = restrictive,
conjunction may be omitted

Here are my problems. 3 also has only one morphological = manifestation, so 2
and 3 are alike in that. 2 may be omitted, as in "I know it's late," so
they're
alike in that. Appositives (2) may start with = "that". Huddleston&Pullum
(p.
1052) note that, in what they call "supplementary relatives", = their term for
non-restrictives, "that" is allowed, as in

February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year
prolonged
the bitter weather.

She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's = insticnts,
that I had tried--and failed-to stifle.

2 and 3 are thus alike in appositives may start with = "that".

That fact that one kind of that-clause identifies and another classifies = is
not
a function of the "that" but of distinction between complement = and modifier,
which is why I'm uncomfortable with noun clauses after verbs, nouns, = and
adjectives as appositives. They're complements, not modifiers, = and
appositives
are modifiers.

Your claim that "(3)is typically an intergral part, yet as object = can be
omitted" begs the question. It assumes that (3) is a pronoun, = but there is
no
evidence to support this claim. That-relatives in English, like = relatives
in a
lot of languages, involve deletion of the embedded coreferent. In = some
complex
cases a resumptive pronoun shows up, although English typically doesn't = like
resumptives. But consider

Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote *0/it.

Deletion would result in an island constraint violation. The = resumptive,
while
inelegant, makes the sentence grammatical. The fact that a pronoun = can
appear
in its in situ position is pretty strong evidence that "that" = isn't the
pronoun.
The that of a that-relative is identical to the that of a noun = clause. It's
deletable, it's morphologically invariant, and it doesn't occur in = places
where
a pronoun can, like after a preposition. 2 and 3 are = indistinguishable.

Herb

Herb,

Maybe Occam (Ockham) would object, but I don't have a problem with = three
"that"s.

1) The demonstrative. This appears before nouns. It = also has a pronoun
form
for use without the noun. There are four distinct morphological = instances of
the
demonstrative: this, these, that, those.

2) The conjunction for a noun clause. This is the variety of = noun clause
often called a content clause. There is only one morphological
manifestation.
The noun clause may appear in virtually all the functions of a = noun. The
appositive (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion.

3) The conjunction for an adjective clause. This is the = variety of
adjective
clause used to identify rather than describe or classify. It is = always
restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in this kind of = clause.

The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The idea of my last post = is that
you
could argue that the conjunction of the noun clause (2) can be seen as = being
used as a pronoun as the connective for the adjective clause (3). = The
morphology of (2) and (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: = (2)
is
independent of the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an
intergral
part, yet as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in = its
clause
as
a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent = clause
formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the stretch that = one
might
be
justified in calling (3) a pronominalized version of (2).

It is of some interest here with regard to pronunciation that the
conjunction
than was often indistinguishable from then in 17th Century England and = is
still so in many dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative = adverb
of
the degree clause while the second is either a relative adverb of a = temporal
clause (subordinate clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate = clause).
The second form is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. = Thus we
have
three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as that, = but
here
they are adverbs.

Hope this helps.

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM >>>

Bruce,

Interesting arguments! Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and = also
reports and describes the use of "as" to introduce a relative = clause, as in
cases like
"not as many as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody = as 0 wants to".

You're right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to = the
question
of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun. = But consider the
alternative. If my arguments don't apply to relative = "that", then we have
THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that introduces noun = clauses, the
demonstrative pronoun, and the relative "that". But the relative "that"
behaves
morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like the demonstrative, = so
there's little reason for positing the third.

"Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"? I like = that. Just think the
potential it gives us as a model for naming lexical categories!

Herb

Herb,

Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that = certain
adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with = a
pronoun.
In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, = so
maybe
it doesn't help after all.

John is taller than George.
John is taller than George is.
John is taller than George is tall.

The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing
John's
height to it. It is relative by referring to the same thing that = the -er is
referring to, the degree of John's tallness.

Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to = show that it
isn't
the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first = three points
of
the previous post. Perhaps we can view it as a = "pronominalized
subordinating
conjunction."

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>>

Craig,

I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns. That = much is
pretty clear. The problem is with "that". The morpho-syntactic evidence is
overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a subordinating
conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" in

I know that it's raining.

and

The rain that's falling now will flood the fields.

They're the same thing. The claim that "that" in = relative clauses is a
pronoun
is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously = flawed
in
many ways, this being one of them. When you say "that is a = pronoun in some
camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a = relative
clause," you beg the question. "That" in a relative = clause has no function
within the clause. It simply introduces it. It is not = subject, object, OP,
or
anything else. Those relationships are marked by the absence of a = noun
phrase
in the appropriate position, not by "that".

Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are = both
embedded
sentences. They differ in that content clauses are complements of = verbs,
nouns,
or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns. It = is the
modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by
relative
clauses but not by content clauses.

I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the
analysis
of "that". Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined = nature of the term
appositive. Here are some examples.

1. My brother Bill ...
2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ...
3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ...
4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ...
5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ...
6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ...
etc.

At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not = entirely
sure
that it's a function. I think rather that it's a traditional term = used to
describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after = nouns.
It
has some usefulness if used with care. Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives doesn't
bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does. I think they're = different
structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, = and
calling
them appositives just confuses matters.

But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us.

Herb
Herb,
    I know we have gone back and forth on this one = before, and I'm still not
convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems = to be
agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with = its
various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival = clauses),
but
that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when = it
functions
within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer = in
noun
clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun = clause.
    I'm wondering whether you see any difference between = a content clause
structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, = but
differing in context by function?) The argument for these as = appositional
seems
to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. = Is
the
notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the
misunderstanding
of
the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard = the
category?

Craig

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
--
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
--

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
--
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
--

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
--
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
--

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface
at:
     http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at:
     http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at:
     http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C52966.0D346D2B-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:19:54 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Veit, Richard" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5296A.0F2A5024" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5296A.0F2A5024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here's an example from Dickens of "as" as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, "...the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but them as pays 'em..." I'd like to see some "but" and "but that" examples. ________________________ Richard Veit Department of English, UNCW Wilmington, NC 28403-5947 910-962-3324 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:51 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Here's another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme's Parts of Speech and Accidence this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in a section headed "Relative Pronouns with Antecedent": "These relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath's A Grammar of the English Language (HFWS]." I suspect we could get into an interesting discussion of "as", "but", and "but that". Herb TEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5296A.0F2A5024 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here’s an example from = Dickens of “as” as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, “…the turnkeys takes = wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but them as pays 'em…”

I’d like to see some = “but” and “but that” examples.

________________________

Richard Veit

Department of English, = UNCW

Wilmington, NC 28403-5947

910-962-3324

-----Original = Message-----
From: Assembly for the = Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:51 = AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Here’s = another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme’s = Parts of Speech and Accidence = this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in = a section headed “Relative Pronouns with = Antecedent”:

“These = relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, = but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common = forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath’s A = Grammar of the English Language (HFWS].”

I suspect we = could get into an interesting discussion of “as”, “but”, = and “but that”.

Herb

TEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5296A.0F2A5024-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:10:10 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5298A.39D2DDBE" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5298A.39D2DDBE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've been trying to find relative examples of "but that" in some of the corpora I have. I haven't run across a firm example yet, but I did run across the following, which I hadn't really thought about before, and am now wondering how to analyze (FROWN J31 134-5): There can be no question [[but that]] this resistance emanates from his ego .... This doesn't seem like a relative clause to me, but it's.....relativish. =20 Bill Spruiell Dept. of English Central Michigan University _____ =20 From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Here's an example from Dickens of "as" as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, "...the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but them as pays 'em..." I'd like to see some "but" and "but that" examples. ________________________ Richard Veit Department of English, UNCW Wilmington, NC 28403-5947 910-962-3324 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:51 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Here's another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme's Parts of Speech and Accidence this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in a section headed "Relative Pronouns with Antecedent": "These relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath's A Grammar of the English Language (HFWS]." I suspect we could get into an interesting discussion of "as", "but", and "but that". Herb TEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5298A.39D2DDBE Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I’ve been trying to find = relative examples of “but that” in some of the corpora I have. I = haven’t run across a firm example yet, but I did run across the following, which = I hadn’t really thought about before, and am now wondering how to analyze (FROWN = J31 134-5):

There can be no question [[but that]] this resistance = emanates from his ego ....

This doesn’t seem like a relative clause to me, but = it’s…..relativish.

=

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Veit, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 9:20 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Here’s an example from = Dickens of “as” as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, = “…the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but them as pays = 'em…”

I’d like to see some “but” and “but that” = examples.

________________________

Richard = Veit

Department of English, = UNCW

Wilmington, NC 28403-5947

910-962-3324

-----Original = Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 8:51 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Here’s = another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme’s = Parts of Speech and Accidence = this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in = a section headed “Relative Pronouns with = Antecedent”:

“These = relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, = but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common = forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath’s A Grammar of the English Language = (HFWS].”

I suspect we = could get into an interesting discussion of “as”, “but”, = and “but that”.

Herb

TEG's web site = at http://ateg.org/

----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5298A.39D2DDBE-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:17:01 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5298B.2643DD6A" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5298B.2643DD6A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think this comes about in a different way. As English was developing a whole array of subordinators, it used most of them with "that". In Middle English and Early Modern English combinations like "which that" "because that", etc. were common. We keep just a few of them in Modern English, like "except that", "now that", and a few others. But in all other cases the "that" has disappeared. I'd argue here that "but" in your sentence is a preposition with a that-clause as its object.=20 Herb =20 ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:10 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 I've been trying to find relative examples of "but that" in some of the corpora I have. I haven't run across a firm example yet, but I did run across the following, which I hadn't really thought about before, and am now wondering how to analyze (FROWN J31 134-5): There can be no question [[but that]] this resistance emanates from his ego .... This doesn't seem like a relative clause to me, but it's.....relativish. =20 Bill Spruiell Dept. of English Central Michigan University ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Here's an example from Dickens of "as" as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, "...the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but them as pays 'em..." I'd like to see some "but" and "but that" examples. ________________________ Richard Veit Department of English, UNCW Wilmington, NC 28403-5947 910-962-3324 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:51 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Here's another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme's Parts of Speech and Accidence this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in a section headed "Relative Pronouns with Antecedent": "These relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath's A Grammar of the English Language (HFWS]." I suspect we could get into an interesting discussion of "as", "but", and "but that". Herb TEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5298B.2643DD6A Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think this comes about in a = different way. As English was developing a whole array of subordinators, it = used most of them with “that”. In Middle English and Early Modern = English combinations like “which that” “because that”, = etc. were common. We keep just a few of them in Modern English, like = “except that”, “now that”, and a few others. But in all = other cases the “that” has disappeared. I’d argue here that = “but” in your sentence is a preposition with a that-clause as its object. =

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 1:10 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

I’ve been trying to find = relative examples of “but that” in some of the corpora I have. I haven’t run across a firm example yet, but I did run across the following, which I hadn’t really thought about before, and am now wondering how to analyze (FROWN J31 134-5):

There can be no question [[but that]] this resistance = emanates from his ego ....

This doesn’t seem like a relative clause to me, but it’s…..relativish.

=

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan = University

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Veit, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 9:20 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Here’s an example from = Dickens of “as” as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, = “…the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but them as pays = 'em…”

I’d like to see some “but” and “but that” = examples.

________________________

Richard = Veit

Department of English, = UNCW

Wilmington, NC 28403-5947

910-962-3324

-----Original = Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert = F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 8:51 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Here’s = another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme’s = Parts of Speech and Accidence = this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in = a section headed “Relative Pronouns with = Antecedent”:

“These = relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, = but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common = forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath’s A Grammar of the English Language = (HFWS].”

I suspect we = could get into an interesting discussion of “as”, “but”, = and “but that”.

Herb

TEG's web site = at http://ateg.org/

----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5298B.2643DD6A-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:27:50 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5298C.B2121644" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5298C.B2121644 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb - That sounds perfectly reasonable to me (for one thing, I can think of plenty of examples with regular nouns after the but). I was just casting about for something that could potentially be analyzed as a relative (and again, I hadn't really thought about that kind of construction before). Playing devil's advocate, though - what other prepositional phrases allow a 'that'-clause as an object? All the ones I can think of off the top of my head require an additional "which," yielding a different structure (about that which X, for that which X, etc.). Could this type of construction be limited enough that Curme thought it better to deal with it as a relative than as a PP?=20 =20 The only other examples I've found so far in FROWN involved clear cases of but coordinating two that-clauses, but I haven't checked any nineteenth-century material yet. Bill Spruiell =20 From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:17 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 I think this comes about in a different way. As English was developing a whole array of subordinators, it used most of them with "that". In Middle English and Early Modern English combinations like "which that" "because that", etc. were common. We keep just a few of them in Modern English, like "except that", "now that", and a few others. But in all other cases the "that" has disappeared. I'd argue here that "but" in your sentence is a preposition with a that-clause as its object.=20 Herb =20 _____ =20 From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:10 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 I've been trying to find relative examples of "but that" in some of the corpora I have. I haven't run across a firm example yet, but I did run across the following, which I hadn't really thought about before, and am now wondering how to analyze (FROWN J31 134-5): There can be no question [[but that]] this resistance emanates from his ego .... This doesn't seem like a relative clause to me, but it's.....relativish. =20 Bill Spruiell Dept. of English Central Michigan University _____ =20 From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Here's an example from Dickens of "as" as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, "...the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but them as pays 'em..." I'd like to see some "but" and "but that" examples. ________________________ Richard Veit Department of English, UNCW Wilmington, NC 28403-5947 910-962-3324 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:51 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Here's another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme's Parts of Speech and Accidence this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in a section headed "Relative Pronouns with Antecedent": "These relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath's A Grammar of the English Language (HFWS]." I suspect we could get into an interesting discussion of "as", "but", and "but that". Herb TEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5298C.B2121644 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Herb = –

That sounds perfectly reasonable to = me (for one thing, I can think of plenty of examples with regular nouns = after the but). I was just = casting about for something that could = potentially be analyzed as a relative (and again, I hadn’t really thought = about that kind of construction before). Playing devil’s advocate, though = – what other prepositional phrases allow a ‘that’-clause as an object? All the ones I can think of off the top of my head require an additional “which,” yielding a different structure (about = that which X, for that which X, etc.). Could this type of construction be = limited enough that Curme thought it better to deal with it as a relative than = as a PP?

The only other examples I’ve = found so far in FROWN involved clear cases of but coordinating two that-clauses, but I haven’t checked any nineteenth-century material yet.

Bill = Spruiell

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 1:17 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

I think this comes about in a = different way. As English was developing a whole array of subordinators, it = used most of them with “that”. In Middle English and Early = Modern English combinations like “which that” “because = that”, etc. were common. We keep just a few of them in Modern English, = like “except that”, “now that”, and a few = others. But in all other cases the “that” has disappeared. = I’d argue here that “but” in your sentence is a preposition with = a that-clause as its object.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 1:10 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

I’ve been trying to find = relative examples of “but that” in some of the corpora I have. I haven’t run across a firm example yet, but I did run across the following, which I hadn’t really thought about before, and am now wondering how to analyze (FROWN J31 134-5):

There can be no question [[but that]] this resistance = emanates from his ego ....

This doesn’t seem like a relative clause to me, but it’s…..relativish.

=

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan = University

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Veit, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 9:20 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Here’s an example from = Dickens of “as” as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, = “…the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but them as pays = 'em…”

I’d like to see some “but” and “but that” = examples.

________________________

Richard = Veit

Department of English, = UNCW

Wilmington, NC 28403-5947

910-962-3324

-----Original = Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert = F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 8:51 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Here’s = another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme’s = Parts of Speech and Accidence = this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in = a section headed “Relative Pronouns with = Antecedent”:

“These = relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, = but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common = forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath’s A Grammar of the English Language = (HFWS].”

I suspect we = could get into an interesting discussion of “as”, “but”, = and “but that”.

Herb

TEG's web site = at http://ateg.org/

----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5298C.B2121644-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:18:20 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C52993.B6EA172E" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C52993.B6EA172E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, How about "in that S" or "except that S"? Those are the only other ones I can think of at the moment. The distribution of "that" has interested me for some time, and there used to be a lot more possibilities, "after that S", "because that S". I think the head word had more of a prepositional or adverbial function and the "that" was necessary to mark the subordination, but as we get into Modern and Late Modern English, the subordinating function gets subsumed by the head and the "that" disappears. "In that", "but that", and "except that" are relics left over by this change. Herb =20 ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:28 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Herb - That sounds perfectly reasonable to me (for one thing, I can think of plenty of examples with regular nouns after the but). I was just casting about for something that could potentially be analyzed as a relative (and again, I hadn't really thought about that kind of construction before). Playing devil's advocate, though - what other prepositional phrases allow a 'that'-clause as an object? All the ones I can think of off the top of my head require an additional "which," yielding a different structure (about that which X, for that which X, etc.). Could this type of construction be limited enough that Curme thought it better to deal with it as a relative than as a PP?=20 =20 The only other examples I've found so far in FROWN involved clear cases of but coordinating two that-clauses, but I haven't checked any nineteenth-century material yet. Bill Spruiell =20 From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:17 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 I think this comes about in a different way. As English was developing a whole array of subordinators, it used most of them with "that". In Middle English and Early Modern English combinations like "which that" "because that", etc. were common. We keep just a few of them in Modern English, like "except that", "now that", and a few others. But in all other cases the "that" has disappeared. I'd argue here that "but" in your sentence is a preposition with a that-clause as its object.=20 Herb =20 ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:10 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 I've been trying to find relative examples of "but that" in some of the corpora I have. I haven't run across a firm example yet, but I did run across the following, which I hadn't really thought about before, and am now wondering how to analyze (FROWN J31 134-5): There can be no question [[but that]] this resistance emanates from his ego .... This doesn't seem like a relative clause to me, but it's.....relativish. =20 Bill Spruiell Dept. of English Central Michigan University ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Here's an example from Dickens of "as" as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, "...the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but them as pays 'em..." I'd like to see some "but" and "but that" examples. ________________________ Richard Veit Department of English, UNCW Wilmington, NC 28403-5947 910-962-3324 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:51 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Here's another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme's Parts of Speech and Accidence this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in a section headed "Relative Pronouns with Antecedent": "These relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath's A Grammar of the English Language (HFWS]." I suspect we could get into an interesting discussion of "as", "but", and "but that". Herb TEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C52993.B6EA172E Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bill,

How about “in that S” = or “except that S”? Those are the only other ones I can think of at the moment. The distribution of “that” has interested me = for some time, and there used to be a lot more possibilities, “after that = S”, “because that S”. I think the head word had more of a prepositional or adverbial function and the “that” was = necessary to mark the subordination, but as we get into Modern and Late Modern = English, the subordinating function gets subsumed by the head and the = “that” disappears. “In that”, “but that”, and = “except that” are relics left over by this = change.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 1:28 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Herb = –

That sounds perfectly reasonable to = me (for one thing, I can think of plenty of examples with regular nouns = after the but). I was just casting about = for something that could potentially be = analyzed as a relative (and again, I hadn’t really thought about that kind of construction before). Playing devil’s advocate, though – = what other prepositional phrases allow a ‘that’-clause as an object? = All the ones I can think of off the top of my head require an additional “which,” yielding a different structure (about that which X, = for that which X, etc.). Could this type of construction be limited enough = that Curme thought it better to deal with it as a relative than as a PP? =

The only other examples I’ve = found so far in FROWN involved clear cases of but coordinating two that-clauses, but I haven’t checked any nineteenth-century material yet.

Bill = Spruiell

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert = F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 1:17 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

I think this comes about in a = different way. As English was developing a whole array of subordinators, it = used most of them with “that”. In Middle English and Early = Modern English combinations like “which that” “because = that”, etc. were common. We keep just a few of them in Modern English, = like “except that”, “now that”, and a few = others. But in all other cases the “that” has disappeared. = I’d argue here that “but” in your sentence is a preposition with = a that-clause as its object.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 1:10 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

I’ve been trying to find = relative examples of “but that” in some of the corpora I have. I haven’t run across a firm example yet, but I did run across the following, which I hadn’t really thought about before, and am now wondering how to analyze (FROWN J31 134-5):

There can be no question [[but that]] this resistance = emanates from his ego ....

This doesn’t seem like a relative clause to me, but it’s…..relativish.

=

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan = University

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Veit, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 9:20 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Here’s an example from = Dickens of “as” as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, = “…the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but them as pays = 'em…”

I’d like to see some “but” and “but that” = examples.

________________________

Richard = Veit

Department of English, = UNCW

Wilmington, NC 28403-5947

910-962-3324

-----Original = Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert = F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 8:51 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Here’s = another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme’s = Parts of Speech and Accidence = this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in = a section headed “Relative Pronouns with = Antecedent”:

“These = relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, = but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common = forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath’s A Grammar of the English Language = (HFWS].”

I suspect we = could get into an interesting discussion of “as”, “but”, = and “but that”.

Herb

TEG's web site = at http://ateg.org/

----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C52993.B6EA172E-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:10:35 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C529B4.31887130" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C529B4.31887130 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb, I think that an argument can be made for a distinction between A-B on the one hand, and C on the other (they aren't completely parallel, so the distinction may be vacuous, but it's a start): (A) The proposal was problematic in that it did not address budgetary concerns. (B) The proposal was acceptable except that it did not address budgetary concerns. (C) There was no question but that the proposal did not address budgetary concerns. Removing the "X that" constituent yields the following: (A') The proposal was problematic. (B') The proposal was acceptable. (C') There was no question. The "but that" expression in C seems to be pinning down the meaning of "question" in a way that's much more crucial to the interpretation of the sentence than the expressions in A and B pin down the meaning of what they modify - i.e., I can see the "but that" expression as acting much more like a restrictive relative ("Which question?). Of course, A and B have adjectives, rather than nouns, which may be causing the difference. The only examples of "in that" I could devise in which it modified a noun involved assignment to categories: The platypus is a typical mammal in that it provides milk to its young, but is an atypical mammal in that it lays eggs. I don't think the "in that" construction is modifying "mammal" in this case the same way "but that" modifies "question" in the earlier one. In this type of example an adjectival constituent ("[is] typically mammalian") can be substituted for the nominal version without much change in meaning; the same kind of substitution (question --> questionable) won't work with C. =20 Again, I'm honestly not sure what this means, if anything at all - it's an interesting construction, and I'm just gnawing on it (if I live to be ninety, I think I'll still be encountering constructions I never really thought about closely before). As you pointed out, it's "fossilized" to large extent, and could be expected to be anomalous. I'm just wondering if this is the kind of case that led Curme to class "but that" as a relativizer. =20 Bill Spruiell _____ =20 From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:18 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Bill, How about "in that S" or "except that S"? Those are the only other ones I can think of at the moment. The distribution of "that" has interested me for some time, and there used to be a lot more possibilities, "after that S", "because that S". I think the head word had more of a prepositional or adverbial function and the "that" was necessary to mark the subordination, but as we get into Modern and Late Modern English, the subordinating function gets subsumed by the head and the "that" disappears. "In that", "but that", and "except that" are relics left over by this change. Herb =20 _____ =20 From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:28 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Herb - That sounds perfectly reasonable to me (for one thing, I can think of plenty of examples with regular nouns after the but). I was just casting about for something that could potentially be analyzed as a relative (and again, I hadn't really thought about that kind of construction before). Playing devil's advocate, though - what other prepositional phrases allow a 'that'-clause as an object? All the ones I can think of off the top of my head require an additional "which," yielding a different structure (about that which X, for that which X, etc.). Could this type of construction be limited enough that Curme thought it better to deal with it as a relative than as a PP?=20 =20 The only other examples I've found so far in FROWN involved clear cases of but coordinating two that-clauses, but I haven't checked any nineteenth-century material yet. Bill Spruiell =20 From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:17 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 I think this comes about in a different way. As English was developing a whole array of subordinators, it used most of them with "that". In Middle English and Early Modern English combinations like "which that" "because that", etc. were common. We keep just a few of them in Modern English, like "except that", "now that", and a few others. But in all other cases the "that" has disappeared. I'd argue here that "but" in your sentence is a preposition with a that-clause as its object.=20 Herb =20 _____ =20 From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:10 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 I've been trying to find relative examples of "but that" in some of the corpora I have. I haven't run across a firm example yet, but I did run across the following, which I hadn't really thought about before, and am now wondering how to analyze (FROWN J31 134-5): There can be no question [[but that]] this resistance emanates from his ego .... This doesn't seem like a relative clause to me, but it's.....relativish. =20 Bill Spruiell Dept. of English Central Michigan University _____ =20 From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Here's an example from Dickens of "as" as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, "...the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but them as pays 'em..." I'd like to see some "but" and "but that" examples. ________________________ Richard Veit Department of English, UNCW Wilmington, NC 28403-5947 910-962-3324 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:51 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that =20 Here's another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme's Parts of Speech and Accidence this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in a section headed "Relative Pronouns with Antecedent": "These relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath's A Grammar of the English Language (HFWS]." I suspect we could get into an interesting discussion of "as", "but", and "but that". Herb TEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C529B4.31887130 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Herb,

I think = that an argument can be made for a distinction between A-B on the one hand, and = C on the other (they aren’t completely parallel, so the distinction may = be vacuous, but it’s a start):

(A) The proposal was problematic in = that it did not address budgetary concerns.

(B) The proposal was acceptable = except that it did not address budgetary concerns.

(C) There was no question but that = the proposal did not address budgetary = concerns.

Removing the “X that” = constituent yields the following:

(A’) The proposal was problematic.

(B’) The proposal was = acceptable.

(C’) There was no = question.

The “but that” = expression in C seems to be pinning down the meaning of “question” in a way = that’s much more crucial to the interpretation of the sentence than the = expressions in A and B pin down the meaning of what they = modify – i.e., I can see the “but that” expression as acting much = more like a restrictive relative (“Which question?). Of course, A and B have adjectives, rather than nouns, which may be causing the difference. The = only examples of “in that” I could devise in which it modified a = noun involved assignment to categories:

        = ;   The platypus is a typical mammal in that it provides milk to its young, but = is an atypical mammal in that it lays eggs.

I don’t think the “in = that” construction is modifying “mammal” in this case the same way = “but that” modifies “question” in the earlier one. In this = type of example an adjectival constituent (“[is] typically = mammalian”) can be substituted for the nominal version without much change in meaning; = the same kind of substitution (question à questionable) won’t work with = C.

Again, I’m honestly not sure = what this means, if anything at all – it’s an interesting = construction, and I’m just gnawing on it (if I live to be ninety, I think = I’ll still be encountering constructions I never really thought about closely = before). As you pointed out, it’s “fossilized” to large extent, = and could be expected to be anomalous. I’m just wondering if this is = the kind of case that led Curme to class “but that” as a relativizer.

Bill = Spruiell

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 2:18 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Bill,

How about “in that S” = or “except that S”? Those are the only other ones I can = think of at the moment. The distribution of “that” has = interested me for some time, and there used to be a lot more possibilities, = “after that S”, “because that S”. I think the head word had = more of a prepositional or adverbial function and the “that” was = necessary to mark the subordination, but as we get into Modern and Late Modern = English, the subordinating function gets subsumed by the head and the = “that” disappears. “In that”, “but that”, and “except that” are relics left over by this = change.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, = William C
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 1:28 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Herb = –

That sounds perfectly reasonable to = me (for one thing, I can think of plenty of examples with regular nouns = after the but). I was just casting about = for something that could potentially be = analyzed as a relative (and again, I hadn’t really thought about that kind of construction before). Playing devil’s advocate, though – = what other prepositional phrases allow a ‘that’-clause as an object? = All the ones I can think of off the top of my head require an additional “which,” yielding a different structure (about that which X, = for that which X, etc.). Could this type of construction be limited enough = that Curme thought it better to deal with it as a relative than as a PP? =

The only other examples I’ve = found so far in FROWN involved clear cases of but coordinating two that-clauses, but I haven’t checked any nineteenth-century material yet.

Bill = Spruiell

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert = F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 1:17 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

I think this comes about in a = different way. As English was developing a whole array of subordinators, it = used most of them with “that”. In Middle English and Early = Modern English combinations like “which that” “because = that”, etc. were common. We keep just a few of them in Modern English, = like “except that”, “now that”, and a few = others. But in all other cases the “that” has disappeared. = I’d argue here that “but” in your sentence is a preposition with = a that-clause as its object.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 1:10 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

I’ve been trying to find = relative examples of “but that” in some of the corpora I have. I haven’t run across a firm example yet, but I did run across the following, which I hadn’t really thought about before, and am now wondering how to analyze (FROWN J31 134-5):

There can be no question [[but that]] this resistance = emanates from his ego ....

This doesn’t seem like a relative clause to me, but it’s…..relativish.

=

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan = University

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Veit, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 9:20 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Here’s an example from = Dickens of “as” as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, = “…the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but them as pays = 'em…”

I’d like to see some “but” and “but that” = examples.

________________________

Richard = Veit

Department of English, = UNCW

Wilmington, NC 28403-5947

910-962-3324

-----Original = Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert = F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, = 2005 8:51 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Here’s = another take on relative pronouns. I happened to be checking Curme’s = Parts of Speech and Accidence = this morning, on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in = a section headed “Relative Pronouns with = Antecedent”:

“These = relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, = but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common = forms enumerated in [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath’s A Grammar of the English Language = (HFWS].”

I suspect we = could get into an interesting discussion of “as”, “but”, and “but that”.

Herb

TEG's web site = at http://ateg.org/

----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C529B4.31887130-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:06:56 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: which and that MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__PartD9FAAE80.0__=" --=__PartD9FAAE80.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, =20 The examples you give are all what I have called the declarative noun = clause. The key to understanding the distribution is to realize that such = a= clause may appear in the same uses as a noun phrase. Just as there are = occasions when the noun phrase is used adverbially, so the DecNC may appear= = in such structures. The connective for the DecNC is "that." (A) i. The proposal did not address budgetary concerns. (A) m. It was problematic in this regard.The matrix uses a prepostional = phrase adverbially. (B) i. The proposal did not address budgetary concerns= .= (=3D A i )(B) m. It was acceptable except for this fact.Here the adverb = "except" is complemented by a prepositional phrase. As is quite common, th= e= DecNC dissolves the preposition of a complement. Compare, John was sorry = that it did not address budgetary concerns.m. John was sorry about this = =66act. Notice also that the noun "fact" is often appropriate to express the way th= e= content of the clause is to be regarded. The last example is reduced from= = a compound sentence. The matrix would be: (C) m. There was no question = about it.The compound sentence using the adversative requires a contrast; = the negative in the first sentence would be one of these:(C) i1. The = proposal may have addressed budgetary concerns. (conceivably)(C) i2. The = proposal did not address budgetary concerns. (=3D A i)(C) i. The proposal = may have addressed budgetary concerns, but it did not.(C) i'. It may have, = but the proposal did not address budgetary concerns.The matrix then takes = the DecNC with the first part of the imbed understood. I think that each o= =66= these phenomena need to be explained independently, before the full = construction can be explained fully. Maybe this way of looking at the = structure will help. Bruce. >>> [log in to unmask] 3/15/2005 4:10:35 PM = >>> Herb,I think that an argument can be made for a distinction between A-B on = the one hand, and C on the other (they aren't completely parallel, so the = distinction may be vacuous, but it's a start):(A) The proposal was = problematic in that it did not address budgetary concerns.(B) The proposal = was acceptable except that it did not address budgetary concerns.(C) There = was no question but that the proposal did not address budgetary = concerns.Removing the "X that" constituent yields the following:(A') The = proposal was problematic.(B') The proposal was acceptable.(C') There was no= = question.The "but that" expression in C seems to be pinning down the meanin= g= of "question" in a way that's much more crucial to the interpretation of = the sentence than the expressions in A and B pin down the meaning of what = they modify * i.e., I can see the "but that" expression as acting much more= = like a restrictive relative ("Which question=3F). Of course, A and B have = adjectives, rather than nouns, which may be causing the difference. The onl= y= examples of "in that" I could devise in which it modified a noun involved = assignment to categories: The platypus is a typical mammal in tha= t= it provides milk to its young, but is an atypical mammal in that it lays = eggs.I don't think the "in that" construction is modifying "mammal" in this= = case the same way "but that" modifies "question" in the earlier one. In thi= s= type of example an adjectival constituent ("[is] typically mammalian") can= = be substituted for the nominal version without much change in meaning; the = same kind of substitution (question =E0 questionable) won't work with C. = Again, I'm honestly not sure what this means, if anything at all * it's an = interesting construction, and I'm just gnawing on it (if I live to be = ninety, I think I'll still be encountering constructions I never really = thought about closely before). As you pointed out, it's "fossilized" to = large extent, and could be expected to be anomalous. I'm just wondering if = this is the kind of case that led Curme to class "but that" as a = relativizer. Bill Spruiell =46rom: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar = [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:18 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that Bill,How about "in that S" or "except that S"=3F Those are the only other= = ones I can think of at the moment. The distribution of "that" has = interested me for some time, and there used to be a lot more possibilities,= = "after that S", "because that S". I think the head word had more of a = prepositional or adverbial function and the "that" was necessary to mark th= e= subordination, but as we get into Modern and Late Modern English, the = subordinating function gets subsumed by the head and the "that" disappears.= = "In that", "but that", and "except that" are relics left over by this = change.Herb=20 =46rom: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar = [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:28 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that Herb *That sounds perfectly reasonable to me (for one thing, I can think o= =66= plenty of examples with regular nouns after the but). I was just casting = about for something that could potentially be analyzed as a relative (and = again, I hadn't really thought about that kind of construction before). = Playing devil's advocate, though * what other prepositional phrases allow a= = 'that'-clause as an object=3F All the ones I can think of off the top of my= = head require an additional "which," yielding a different structure (about = that which X, for that which X, etc.). Could this type of construction be = limited enough that Curme thought it better to deal with it as a relative = than as a PP=3F The only other examples I've found so far in FROWN involve= d= clear cases of but coordinating two that-clauses, but I haven't checked an= y= nineteenth-century material yet.Bill Spruiell From: Assembly for the = Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of = Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:17 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that I think this comes about in a different way. As English was developing a = whole array of subordinators, it used most of them with "that". In Middle = English and Early Modern English combinations like "which that" "because = that", etc. were common. We keep just a few of them in Modern English, lik= e= "except that", "now that", and a few others. But in all other cases the = "that" has disappeared. I'd argue here that "but" in your sentence is a = preposition with a that-clause as its object. Herb=20 =46rom: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar = [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:10 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that I've been trying to find relative examples of "but that" in some of the = corpora I have. I haven't run across a firm example yet, but I did run = across the following, which I hadn't really thought about before, and am no= w= wondering how to analyze (FROWN J31 134-5):There can be no question [[but = that]] this resistance emanates from his ego ....This doesn't seem like a = relative clause to me, but it's*..relativish. Bill SpruiellDept. of = EnglishCentral Michigan University =46rom: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar = [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that Here's an example from Dickens of "as" as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller = says, "*the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but = them as pays 'em*"I'd like to see some "but" and "but that" = examples.________________________Richard VeitDepartment of English, = UNCWWilmington, NC 28403-5947910-962-3324 -----Original Message----- =46rom: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar = [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:51 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: which and that Here's another take on relative pronouns. I = happened to be checking Curme's Parts of Speech and Accidence this morning,= = on another matter entirely, when I came across the following in a section = headed "Relative Pronouns with Antecedent":"These relative pronouns are who= ,= which, that, as, but, but that, but what (colloquial), the indefinites = whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common forms enumerated in= = [his Syntax, the other part of Curme and Kurath's A Grammar of the English = Language (HFWS]."I suspect we could get into an interesting discussion of = "as", "but", and "but that".HerbTEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave= = the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV = list, please visit the list's web interface at: = http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the= = list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV = list, please visit the list's web interface at: = http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the= = list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV = list, please visit the list's web interface at: = http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the= = list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV = list, please visit the list's web interface at: = http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the= = list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV = list, please visit the list's web interface at: = http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the= = list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV = list, please visit the list's web interface at: = http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the= = list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV = list, please visit the list's web interface at: = http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the= = list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__PartD9FAAE80.0__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bill,

The examples you give are all what I have called the declarative noun = clause. The key to understanding the distribution is to realize that = such a clause may appear in the same uses as a noun phrase. Just= = as there are occasions when the noun phrase is used adverbially, so the = DecNC may appear in such structures.  The connective for the DecN= C= is "that."

(A) i. The proposal did not = address budgetary concerns.

(A) m. = It was problematic in this = regard.

The matrix uses a = prepostional phrase adverbially.

(B) i. The = proposal did not address budgetary concerns. (=3D A i = )

(B) m. = It was acceptable except for this = =66act.

Here the adverb "except" = is complemented by a prepositional phrase. As is quite common, the = DecNC dissolves the preposition of a complement. Compare,

John was sorry = that it did not address budgetary concerns.

m. John wa= s= sorry about this fact.

Notice also that the noun= = "fact" is often appropriate to express the way the content of the clause is= = to be regarded. The last example = is reduced from a compound sentence. The matrix would be:

(C) m. There was= = no question about it.

The compound sentence = using the adversative requires a contrast; the negative in the first = sentence would be one of these:

(C) i1. The proposal may have addressed budgetary = concerns. (conceivably)

(C) i2. Th= e= proposal did not address budgetary concerns. (=3D A = i)

(C) i. The = proposal may have addressed budgetary concerns, but it did not.

(C) i'. It may = have, but the proposal did not address budgetary = concerns.

The matrix then takes the= = DecNC with the first part of the imbed understood. I think that each = of these phenomena need to be explained independently, before the full = construction can be explained fully. Maybe this way of looking at the= = structure will help.

Bruce.

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/15/2005 4:10:35 PM = >>>

Herb,

I think that an argument can be made = =66or a distinction between A-B on the one hand, and C on the other (they = aren=92t completely parallel, so the distinction may be vacuous, but it=92s= = a start):

(A) The proposal= = was problematic in that it did not address budgetary = concerns.

(B) The proposal= = was acceptable except that it did not address budgetary = concerns.

(C) There was no= = question but that the proposal did not address budgetary = concerns.

Removing the =93= X= that=94 constituent yields the following:

(A=92) The proposal was = problematic.

(B=92) The = proposal was acceptable.

(C=92) There was= = no question.

The =93but = that=94 expression in C seems to be pinning down the meaning of = =93question=94 in a way that=92s much more crucial to the interpretation of= = the sentence than the expressions in A and B pin down the meaning of what <= I= style=3D"mso-bidi-font-style: normal">they modify =96 i.e., I can see the= = =93but that=94 expression as acting much more like a restrictive relative = (=93Which question=3F). Of course, A and B have adjectives, rather than = nouns, which may be causing the difference. The only examples of =93in = that=94 I could devise in which it modified a noun involved assignment to = categories:

The = platypus is a typical mammal in that it provides milk to its young, but is = an atypical mammal in that it lays eggs.

I don=92t think = the =93in that=94 construction is modifying =93mammal=94 in this case the = same way =93but that=94 modifies =93question=94 in the earlier one. In this= = type of example an adjectival constituent (=93[is] typically mammalian=94) = can be substituted for the nominal version without much change in meaning; = the same kind of substitution (question =E0 questionable) won=92t work with = C.

Again, I=92m = honestly not sure what this means, if anything at all =96 it=92s an = interesting construction, and I=92m just gnawing on it (if I live to be = ninety, I think I=92ll still be encountering constructions I never really = thought about closely before). As you pointed out, it=92s =93fossilized=94 = to large extent, and could be expected to be anomalous. I=92m just wonderin= g= if this is the kind of case that led Curme to class =93but that= =94= as a relativizer.

Bill = Spruiell

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar = [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:18 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Bill,

How about =93in = that S=94 or =93except that S=94=3F Those are the only other ones I = can think of at the moment. The distribution of =93that=94 has = interested me for some time, and there used to be a lot more possibilities,= = =93after that S=94, =93because that S=94. I think the head word had = more of a prepositional or adverbial function and the =93that=94 was = necessary to mark the subordination, but as we get into Modern and Late = Modern English, the subordinating function gets subsumed by the head and th= e= =93that=94 disappears. =93In that=94, =93but that=94, and =93except = that=94 are relics left over by this change.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar = [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:28 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Herb = =96

That sounds = perfectly reasonable to me (for one thing, I can think of plenty of example= s= with regular nouns after the but). I was just casting about for something that = could potentially be analyzed as a relative (and = again, I hadn=92t really thought about that kind of construction before). = Playing devil=92s advocate, though =96 what other prepositional phrases = allow a =91that=92-clause as an object=3F All the ones I can think of off = the top of my head require an additional =93which,=94 yielding a different = structure (about that which X, for that which X, etc.). Could this type of = construction be limited enough that Curme thought it better to deal with it= = as a relative than as a PP=3F

The only other = examples I=92ve found so far in FROWN involved clear cases of but coordinating two that-clauses, = but I haven=92t checked any nineteenth-century material = yet.

Bill = Spruiell

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar = [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert = =46.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:17 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

I think this = comes about in a different way. As English was developing a whole = array of subordinators, it used most of them with =93that=94. In = Middle English and Early Modern English combinations like =93which that=94 = =93because that=94, etc. were common. We keep just a few of them in = Modern English, like =93except that=94, =93now that=94, and a few = others. But in all other cases the =93that=94 has disappeared. = I=92d argue here that =93but=94 in your sentence is a preposition with a = that-clause as its object.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar = [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:10 PM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

I=92ve been = trying to find relative examples of =93but that=94 in some of the corpora I= = have. I haven=92t run across a firm example yet, but I did run across the = =66ollowing, which I hadn=92t really thought about before, and am now = wondering how to analyze (FROWN J31 134-5):

There can be no question [[but that]] this = resistance emanates from his ego ....

This doesn=92t seem like a relative clause to me, but= = it=92s=85..relativish.

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central = Michigan University

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar = [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On = Behalf Of Veit, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:20 AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and = that

Here=92s an = example from Dickens of =93as=94 as a relative pronoun. Sam Weller says, = =93=85the turnkeys takes wery good care to seize hold o' ev'ry body but the= m= as pays = 'em=85=94

I=92d like to se= e= some =93but=94 and =93but that=94 examples.

________________________

Richard = Veit

Department of = English, UNCW

Wilmington, NC = 28403-5947

910-962-3324

-----Original= = Message-----
From: = Assembly for the Teaching of English = Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:51 = AM
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which and that

Here=92s another take on relative pronouns. I = happened to be checking Curme=92s Parts of Speech and Accidence this morning, on another = matter entirely, when I came across the following in a section headed = =93Relative Pronouns with Antecedent=94:

=93These relative pronouns are who, which, that, as, but, but that, but = what (colloquial), the indefinites whoever, whatever, and whichever, and other less common forms enumerated in [hi= s= Syntax, the other part of= = Curme and Kurath=92s A Grammar of the= = English Language (HFWS].=94

I suspect we could get into an interesting discussion= = of =93as=94, =93but=94, and =93but that=94.

Herb

TEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------
This= message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for = the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is = addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------

To= join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at= := http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave th= e= list"=20

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV= = list, please visit the list's web interface at: = http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the= = list"=20

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__PartD9FAAE80.0__=-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:32:28 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Martha Kolln <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: absolute phrases? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1101131742==_ma============" --============_-1101131742==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Dear Kent, Absolute phrases are generally considered free modifiers. In my book I call them sentence modifiers. There are two kinds--with different purposes and different effects. One kind explains a cause or condition: The car having developed engine trouble, we stopped for the night. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The second kind adds a detail or point of focus to the idea stated in the main clause--like a filmmaker moving in for a close-up: The man stood laughing, his weapons at his hips. (Steven Crane) There was no bus in sight and Julian, his hands still jammed in his pockets and his head thrust forward, scowled down the empty street. (Flannery O'Connor) Her hair a dripping mess, Jill dashed in out of the rain. These are noun phrases in form, a headword with one postnoun modifier. The first kind nearly always has a participle as the postnoun modifier; the second kind can have any form: participial phrase, prepositional phrase, noun phrase. The postnoun modifier is adjectival, but I would call the absolute itself a sentence modifier. Martha >I sent this question out to my colleagues on the English faculty here a >couple days ago. No one has responded yet, so I guess they don't know >either! It's probably a simple answer. Any help extended to this >simpleton will be appreciated. > >Kent > >* >Does an absolute phrase function adjectivally or adverbially? Since it >usually contains a participle, I suppose one would think of it as an >adjective... However, since it's modifying the whole sentence or clause, >couldn't it be seen to function in both senses? Is it the one kind of >phrase without an "absolutely" certain function? > >To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >and select "Join or leave the list" > >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --============_-1101131742==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: absolute phrases?

Dear Kent,

Absolute phrases are generally considered free modifiers. In my book I call them sentence modifiers. There are two kinds--with different purposes and different effects. One kind explains a cause or condition:

The car having developed engine trouble, we stopped for the night.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The second kind adds a detail or point of focus to the idea stated in the main clause--like a filmmaker moving in for a close-up:

The man stood laughing, his weapons at his hips. (Steven Crane)

There was no bus in sight and Julian, his hands still jammed in his pockets and his head thrust forward, scowled down the empty street. (Flannery O'Connor)

Her hair a dripping mess, Jill dashed in out of the rain.

These are noun phrases in form, a headword with one postnoun modifier. The first kind nearly always has a participle as the postnoun modifier; the second kind can have any form: participial phrase, prepositional phrase, noun phrase.

The postnoun modifier is adjectival, but I would call the absolute itself a sentence modifier.

Martha

I sent this question out to my colleagues on the English faculty here a
couple days ago. No one has responded yet, so I guess they don't know
either! It's probably a simple answer. Any help extended to this
simpleton will be appreciated.

Kent

*
Does an absolute phrase function adjectivally or adverbially? Since it
usually contains a participle, I suppose one would think of it as an
adjective... However, since it's modifying the whole sentence or clause,
couldn't it be seen to function in both senses? Is it the one kind of
phrase without an "absolutely" certain function?

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --============_-1101131742==_ma============-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:41:07 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edward Vavra <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: absolute phrases? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Kent, The answers you get to your question will depend on the biases of the grammarians who answer it. I think most would agree that the participle in an absolute modifies the preceding noun and thus the noun + participle constitute the noun absolute. The differents in explanation seem to be in what is, and what is not, an absolute, and in how they functions. Most traditional grammarians noted that most absolutes function as adverbs. (Modern linguists now call them "sentence modifiers," but that raises another whole question.) Your question about why it is called an "absolute" is interesting, and I do not claim to have the answer, but it may be that the absolute is one type of "absolutely" reduced clause construction. When they function as adverbs, for example, they can be seen as reductions of subordinate clauses: When Jeff the party, everyone became bored. Jeff having left the party, everyone became bored. KISS grammar apparently differs from those of most of the modern linguists (and from most members of this list), and instead goes back to Curme who noted that absolutes can function as subjects, objects of prepositions, predicate nouns. Thus, for example, in Him being there made me sick. "Him being there" would be a noun absolute that functions as the subject. Some prescriptivists may claim that "him" should be "his," but they are wrong. If you are interested in more about Curme's explanations, see: http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/G11/IM_NounAbs_TN.htm There you will find more about the KISS explanation, and also scans of the relevant pages from Curme. Ed V. >I sent this question out to my colleagues on the English faculty here a >couple days ago. No one has responded yet, so I guess they don't know >either! It's probably a simple answer. Any help extended to this >simpleton will be appreciated. > >Kent > >* >Does an absolute phrase function adjectivally or adverbially? Since it >usually contains a participle, I suppose one would think of it as an >adjective... However, since it's modifying the whole sentence or clause, >couldn't it be seen to function in both senses? Is it the one kind of >phrase without an "absolutely" certain function? > >To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >and select "Join or leave the list" > >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:55:07 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Wollin, Edith" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: absolute phrases? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pence and Emery say "an absolute construction is any expression (word, = phrase, or clause) used independently, that is, so used that it has = little or not grammatical function in the statement in which it appears. = Such an expression will, of course, if rightly used, have a logical = relation to its sentence."=20 The nominative absolute is one example, infinitive phrase or clause is = another (To tell the truth, Henry doesn't know his own mind); clause = examples are "As I said before, he is certainly handsome." and "Mary = will, I feel confident, do a good job." The list goes = on--"Unfortunately, I have other pressing things to do." Edith Wollin -----Original Message----- From: Edward Vavra [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 12:41 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: absolute phrases? Kent, The answers you get to your question will depend on the biases of the grammarians who answer it. I think most would agree that the participle in an absolute modifies the preceding noun and thus the noun + participle constitute the noun absolute. The differents in explanation seem to be in what is, and what is not, an absolute, and in how they functions. Most traditional grammarians noted that most absolutes function as adverbs. (Modern linguists now call them "sentence modifiers," but that raises another whole question.) Your question about why it is called an "absolute" is interesting, and I do not claim to have the answer, but it may be that the absolute is one type of "absolutely" reduced clause construction. When they function as adverbs, for example, they can be seen as reductions of subordinate clauses: When Jeff the party, everyone became bored. Jeff having left the party, everyone became bored. KISS grammar apparently differs from those of most of the modern linguists (and from most members of this list), and instead goes back to Curme who noted that absolutes can function as subjects, objects of prepositions, predicate nouns. Thus, for example, in Him being there made me sick. "Him being there" would be a noun absolute that functions as the subject. Some prescriptivists may claim that "him" should be "his," but they are wrong. If you are interested in more about Curme's explanations, see: http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/G11/IM_NounAbs_TN.htm There you will find more about the KISS explanation, and also scans of the relevant pages from Curme. Ed V. >I sent this question out to my colleagues on the English faculty here a >couple days ago. No one has responded yet, so I guess they don't know >either! It's probably a simple answer. Any help extended to this >simpleton will be appreciated. > >Kent > >* >Does an absolute phrase function adjectivally or adverbially? Since it >usually contains a participle, I suppose one would think of it as an >adjective... However, since it's modifying the whole sentence or clause, >couldn't it be seen to function in both senses? Is it the one kind of >phrase without an "absolutely" certain function? > >To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >and select "Join or leave the list" > >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:00:06 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: absolute phrases? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline My understanding is that the name comes from the Latin ablative absolute, which consists of a noun and an adjectival form. Jane Saral The Westminster Schools Atlanta, GA To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:11:35 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Wollin, Edith" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Go camping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C52A6C.BC7539DE" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C52A6C.BC7539DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, ( I am a bit tardy on this reply, and others are probably done with this = topic!) I am pretty sure that I have seen the historical stuff on a/on = in other places, but it is for sure referenced in Pence and Emery " A = gerund is sometimes used as the object of a (originally the preposition = on). Although a is infrequently encountered in modern English, the = pattern survives in the constructions illustrated . . . below." My mother has gone calling. I spent the afternoon studying geometry,. =20 (A "modern" example for P&E is from E.A. Robinson: I have spent/Long = time a-wondering when I shall be/As happy as Cliff Klingenhagen.) =20 In a foot note, they say," When the a is dropped the verbal is now often = regarded as a participle rather than as a gerund. In Let's go fishing" = fishing may be regarded as a gerund, the object of an understood a, or = as a participle modifying "s." =20 I would add to that, since gerunds can function as adverbs, why not call = it an adverbial gerund in modern English? In most cases, it doesn't seem = much like an understood a/on anymore. To me it is pretty much like "we = will go home." and there home is an adverbial noun, isn't it? =20 Edith Wollin By the way, hope you enjoy San Francisco. I gave a colleague your name = and told her to find your session! -----Original Message----- From: Craig Hancock [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 6:58 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Go camping Edith, We may just have been exposed to different versions of the old = classic kids poem. To me, it was 'ahunting' we will go, not = 'onhunting'. To me, to go on hunting means to continue and to go = hunting means to start. Are you sure a hunting contracts on hunting? = (I'll go no more aroaming?) If so, then you are of course right and I = was making an awkward comment. But I do think go camping has to do with beginning a complex = process. To keep on camping or go on camping, at least today, means to = continue a complex process already started. =20 It's probably just a natural disopsition for me to think first of = function and then feel comfortable that we have evolved ways to = accomplish these. If that is the case, then unusual patterns are = welcome (as functional). We seem so hard pressed to explain these = phenomena as placeable within a category, when the language pushes us = into new ground all the time. =20 I like Herb's explanation on commands, largely because it helps me = understand the meaning and its use/place within my language world. The ultimate goal, I guess, wouldn't be the tedious creation of = subcategories, but the rich exploration of nuances of meaning as = realized through these various forms. I realize this is the writing teacher and writer at work, and it = puts me at odds with most of the group. Craig Wollin, Edith wrote: Craig,=20 Are you teasing? Certainly today, to go on hunting is to keep on, but = that is not what "on hunting we will go" means/meant. Edith -----Original Message----- From: Craig Hancock [ mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:04 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Go camping Edith, To me, the equivalent to "go on hunting" is "keep hunting". One is = a statement about participation in a process (go hunting, which may = require many steps to carry out), the other about continuation. = Processes have beginnings and duration, and we can engage in these = willfully. Both, it seems to me, express willfulness (although we can = certainly say "there I go shooting my mouth off again".) =20 I have nothing else to offer an interesting talk, which is really = about how to understand a phenomena that doesn't neatly fit our previous = categories. =20 Craig Wollin, Edith wrote: My understanding of this idiom is that it is a fossilized form of the = phrase that we all know from "A' hunting we will go." This is a = contracted form of "we will go on hunting." So it used to be an = adverbial prepositional phrase with "hunting" as a gerund object of the = preposition. So I have always understood it to be today an adverbial = noun/gerund. I admit that like Bruce I tend to look at history to = understand the present, and it is certainly possible that that is = irrelevant. =20 Edith Wollin, North Seattle Community College -----Original Message----- From: Martha Kolln [ mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 8:56 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Go camping Dick, I certainly agree that idioms are perhaps better left whole, rather than = picking them apart, because of course then they lose their meaning. =20 The "go camping" model is especially interesting, I think, because it is = confined to recreational activities: Not only do we go camping, we also = go fishing, hiking, swimming, boating. Walking? Maybe. However, we = don't go working or even playing, nor do we go sleeping. Some folks do = go drinking, I've heard. Those activities still seem to me like "where" answers--in contrast to = the linking "go"--with the adjectival "bananas" and "crazy" and = "native." Martha =20 Martha, =20 As always, your postings are thoughtful, helpful, and pellucid. =20 I do not see "go camping/bowling/skiing" as parallel to "sit = reading/knitting/fidgeting." In the latter the verb and modifier are = independent of each other: she sat, and she read while doing so. With = "go camping" you can't say she went, and she camped while doing so. "Go = camping" is phrasal and idiomatic. It can only be understood as a = phrase. =20 To illustrate the difference, one could read "She went walking" in both = ways: (1) she went for a walk (parallel to "go camping") and (2) she = went somewhere, and her means of transport was on foot (parallel to "sit = reading"). =20 [GO + Adjective] is frequently used to express a change of state or = activity. Sometimes "go" might be seen as a linking verb, equivalent to = "become": "go crazy/bald/deaf." But most adjectives can't be used with = "go": "become happy/sad/rich" but not *"go happy/sad/rich." Others that = can be used with "go" can't be used with "become": "go = native/AWOL/bananas" but not *"become native/AWOL/bananas." When Clairol = urges you to "go blond," they aren't using "go" as a linking verb but as = an intransitive verb implying a volitional act. =20 Examples with prepositional phrases: go off the deep end, go to pieces, = go into debt. All of the [GO + modifier] expressions that express a = change of state are idiomatic and phrasal in the sense that the meaning = of "go" cannot be understood independent of the modifier that follows = it. =20 Dick Veit =20 ________________________ =20 Richard Veit Department of English, UNCW Wilmington, NC 28403-5947 910-962-3324 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ = mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Martha Kolln Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:37 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Go camping =20 Michael, =20 As you see, Ed and I agree on the function of "camping" as an = adverbial. I'd like to expand a bit on the issue of form and function = in relation to the verbals. =20 In traditional grammar, as you know, "verbal" serves as an umbrella term = for infinitives, gerunds, and participles--generally speaking, for verbs = in their roles other than as the predicating, or main, verb of a clause. =20 The term "infinitive" is straightforward: It refers strictly to form, to = the base form of the verb, with or without "to." In every verb except = "be," the infinitive is identical to the present tense: to eat, to = sleep, to seem. The infinitive--the base form--is the form of the verb = used in commands (Eat your dinner; Be nice to your sister; Have a good = day). It's also used adverbially (We took the week off to go camping); = adjectivally (Our decision to go camping turned out to be a disaster); = and nominally (We decided to go camping). In other words, the term = "infinitive" itself tells us nothing at all about function. (And note = that my description of the infinitive--including, as it does, = commands--goes beyond the traditional definition of "verbal." I could = also have mentioned the infinitive as a form used in the main verb = string, when it follows a modal: "You should be nice to your sister.") =20 The term "gerund," on the other hand, includes both form and function; = it refers to the -ing or -en forms of the verb when it is used = nominally--that is, when it fills the function of a noun. (Camping is = fun; We enjoy camping.) In other words, to call a verb a gerund = automatically brands it as a nominal. =20 The term "participle" is a fuzzy one, not at all clear-cut like = "gerund." "Participle" has two meanings: It traditionally refers not = only to the -ing and -en forms themselves, known as the present = participle and past participle--in other words, a designation of = form--but also to those forms when they are used adjectivally (The = sleeping baby looks peaceful; The movie directed by Clint Eastwood won = the Oscar)--a designation of function.=20 =20 However, despite that traditional limitation of function to adjectivals, = there are occasions when the -ing form modifies verbs, as in Michael's = example. So it makes sense to expand on the traditional "participle as = verbal" definition to include adverbials as well as adjectivals. In "A = Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," Quirk et al. do = precisely that when they discuss (on p. 506) what they call "obligatory = adjuncts" [in other words, obligatory adverbials] with certain verbs = (sit, stand, come, go) such as "He stood waiting," She sat reading," = "She came running." In other words, these are intransitive verbs that = in certain contexts are incomplete without adverbials. =20 I think it's fair to conclude, then, that to limit the verbal/participle = to "modifier of nouns"--that is, to say that participles modify only = nouns and not verbs--is not accurate when it comes to certain verbs, as = described by Quirk et al.--and by Michael. =20 In Ed's explanation of "We go camping every summer," instead of = expanding the definition of "participle" to include adverbials, he has = expanded the definition of gerund. I prefer to leave the definition of = gerund as an -ing or -en verb that fills a nominal function. (While = it's true that nouns and noun phrases can indeed modify verbs, they are = not functioning nominally when they do so; they are functioning = adverbially.) =20 (I should mention also that in his KISS grammar Ed has come up with a = solution to that dual use of the term "participle": He calls the = adjectival use of -ing and -en verbs "gerundives." ) =20 In my explanations of modern grammar, I try to use traditional = terminology that has wide acceptance whenever possible, but sometimes, = as in the case of "participle," that terminology may have to be = explained in new, more accurate ways; it may have to be redefined. = Another example, just to make the point clear, is the definition of = "pronoun": A pronoun generally substitutes for a nominal (a complete = noun phrase, even a verb phrase or clause)--not just a noun, as the = traditional definition tells us. =20 My apologies for going so far afield from camping. =20 =20 Martha Kolln =20 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select = "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV = list, please visit the list's web interface at: = http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave = the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select = "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select = "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select = "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select = "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web = interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select = "Join or leave the list"=20 Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C52A6C.BC7539DE Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Craig,=20 (

I am a=20 bit tardy on this reply, and others are probably done with this topic!) = I am=20 pretty sure that I have seen the historical stuff on a/on in other = places,=20 but it is for sure referenced in Pence and Emery " A gerund is sometimes = used as=20 the object of a (originally the preposition on). Although a is = infrequently=20 encountered in modern English, the pattern survives in the constructions = illustrated . . . below."

My=20 mother has gone calling.

I=20 spent the afternoon studying geometry,.

(A "modern" example for P&E is from E.A. Robinson: I = have=20 spent/Long time a-wondering when I shall be/As happy as Cliff=20 Klingenhagen.)

In a=20 foot note, they say," When the a is dropped the verbal is now often = regarded as=20 a participle rather than as a gerund. In Let's go fishing" fishing may = be=20 regarded as a gerund, the object of an understood a, or as a participle=20 modifying "s."

I=20 would add to that, since gerunds can function as adverbs, why not call = it an=20 adverbial gerund in modern English? In most cases, it doesn't seem much = like an=20 understood a/on anymore. To me it is pretty much like "we will go home." = and=20 there home is an adverbial noun, isn't it?

Edith=20 Wollin

By the=20 way, hope you enjoy San Francisco. I gave a colleague your name and told = her to=20 find your session!

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hancock=20 [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, March = 09, 2005=20 6:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: = Go=20 camping

Edith,
We may just have = been=20 exposed to different versions of the old classic kids poem. To = me, it=20 was 'ahunting' we will go, not 'onhunting'. To me, to go on=20 hunting means to continue and to go hunting means to start. = Are you sure a hunting contracts on hunting? (I'll = go no=20 more aroaming?) If so, then you are of course right and I was making = an=20 awkward comment.
But I do think go camping has = to do=20 with beginning a complex process. To keep on = camping or=20 go on camping, at least today, means to continue a complex = process=20 already started.
It's probably just a natural=20 disopsition for me to think first of function and then feel = comfortable that=20 we have evolved ways to accomplish these. If that is the case, = then=20 unusual patterns are welcome (as functional). We seem so hard = pressed to=20 explain these phenomena as placeable within a category, when the = language=20 pushes us into new ground all the time.
I like = Herb's=20 explanation on commands, largely because it helps me understand the = meaning=20 and its use/place within my language world.
The = ultimate=20 goal, I guess, wouldn't be the tedious creation of subcategories, but = the rich=20 exploration of nuances of meaning as realized through these various=20 forms.
I realize this is the writing teacher and = writer at=20 work, and it puts me at odds with most of the=20 group.

Craig

Wollin, Edith wrote:
[log in to unmask] = type=3D"cite">
Craig,

Are you teasing? Certainly today, to go on hunting is to = keep on, but=20 that is not what "on hunting we will go" = means/meant.

Edith

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hancock = [mailto:[log in to unmask] EDU]
Sent:=20 Monday, March 07, 2005 11:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
= Subject:=20 Re: Go camping

Edith,
To me, = the=20 equivalent to "go on hunting" is "keep hunting". One is a = statement=20 about participation in a process (go hunting, which may require = many steps=20 to carry out), the other about continuation. Processes have=20 beginnings and duration, and we can engage in these willfully. = Both,=20 it seems to me, express willfulness (although we can certainly say = "there=20 I go shooting my mouth off again".)
I have = nothing=20 else to offer an interesting talk, which is really about how to = understand=20 a phenomena that doesn't neatly fit our previous categories.=20

Craig

Wollin, Edith wrote:
[log in to unmask] = type=3D"cite">
My understanding of this idiom is that it is a = fossilized form of=20 the phrase that we all know from "A' hunting we will go." = This is=20 a contracted form of "we will go on hunting." So it used to be = an=20 adverbial prepositional phrase with "hunting" as a gerund object = of the=20 preposition. So I have always understood it to be today an = adverbial=20 noun/gerund. I admit that like Bruce I tend to look at history = to=20 understand the present, and it is certainly possible that that = is=20 irrelevant.

Edith Wollin, North Seattle Community = College

-----Original Message-----
From: Martha = Kolln [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:=20 Monday, March 07, 2005 8:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
= Subject:=20 Re: Go camping

Dick,

I certainly agree that idioms are perhaps better left = whole,=20 rather than picking them apart, because of course then they = lose their=20 meaning.

The "go camping" model is especially interesting, I = think,=20 because it is confined to recreational activities: Not = only do=20 we go camping, we also go fishing, hiking, swimming, = boating. =20 Walking? Maybe. However, we don't go working or = even=20 playing, nor do we go sleeping. Some folks do go = drinking, I've=20 heard.

Those activities still seem to me like "where" = answers--in=20 contrast to the linking "go"--with the adjectival = "bananas" and=20 "crazy" and "native."

Martha

Martha,

As=20 always, your postings are thoughtful, helpful, and=20 pellucid.

I do not=20 see "go camping/bowling/skiing" as parallel to "sit=20 reading/knitting/fidgeting." In the latter the verb and = modifier are=20 independent of each other: she sat, and she read while doing = so.=20 With "go camping" you can't say she went, and she camped = while doing=20 so. "Go camping" is phrasal and idiomatic. It can only be = understood=20 as a phrase.

To=20 illustrate the difference, one could read "She went walking" = in both=20 ways: (1) she went for a walk (parallel to "go camping") and = (2) she=20 went somewhere, and her means of transport was on foot = (parallel to=20 "sit reading").

[GO +=20 Adjective] is frequently used to express a change of state = or=20 activity. Sometimes "go" might be seen as a linking verb, = equivalent=20 to "become": "go crazy/bald/deaf." But most adjectives can't = be used=20 with "go": "become happy/sad/rich" but not *"go = happy/sad/rich."=20 Others that can be used with "go" can't be used with = "become": "go=20 native/AWOL/bananas" but not *"become native/AWOL/bananas." = When=20 Clairol urges you to "go blond," they aren't using "go" as a = linking=20 verb but as an intransitive verb implying a volitional=20 act.

Examples=20 with prepositional phrases: go off the deep end, go to = pieces, go=20 into debt. All of the [GO + modifier] expressions that = express a=20 change of state are idiomatic and phrasal in the sense that = the=20 meaning of "go" cannot be understood independent of the = modifier=20 that follows it.

Dick=20 Veit

________________________

Richard Veit

Department of English, UNCW

Wilmington, NC 28403-5947

910-962-3324

-----Original Message-----
From: = Assembly for the=20 Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]<= /A>]=20 On Behalf Of Martha Kolln
Sent: Friday, March = 04, 2005=20 5:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
= Subject:=20 Re: Go camping

Michael,

As you=20 see, Ed and I agree on the function of "camping" as an = adverbial. I'd like to expand a bit on the issue of = form and=20 function in relation to the verbals.

In=20 traditional grammar, as you know, "verbal" serves as an = umbrella=20 term for infinitives, gerunds, and participles--generally = speaking,=20 for verbs in their roles other than as the predicating, or = main,=20 verb of a clause.

The=20 term "infinitive" is straightforward: It refers strictly to = form, to=20 the base form of the verb, with or without "to." In = every verb=20 except "be," the infinitive is identical to the present = tense: to=20 eat, to sleep, to seem. The infinitive--the base = form--is the=20 form of the verb used in commands (Eat your dinner; Be nice = to your=20 sister; Have a good day). It's also used adverbially = (We took=20 the week off to go camping); adjectivally (Our = decision=20 to go camping turned out to be a disaster); and=20 nominally (We decided to go camping). In = other=20 words, the term "infinitive" itself tells us nothing at all = about=20 function. (And note that my description of the=20 infinitive--including, as it does, commands--goes beyond the = traditional definition of "verbal." I could also have=20 mentioned the infinitive as a form used in the main verb = string,=20 when it follows a modal: "You should be nice to your=20 sister.")

The=20 term "gerund," on the other hand, includes both form and = function;=20 it refers to the -ing or -en forms of the verb = when it=20 is used nominally--that is, when it fills the function of a=20 noun. (Camping is fun; We enjoy = camping.) =20 In other words, to call a verb a gerund automatically brands = it as a=20 nominal.

The=20 term "participle" is a fuzzy one, not at all clear-cut like=20 "gerund." "Participle" has two meanings: It=20 traditionally refers not only to the -ing and -en forms = themselves,=20 known as the present participle and past participle--in = other words,=20 a designation of form--but also to those forms when they are = used=20 adjectivally (The sleeping baby looks peaceful; The = movie=20 directed by Clint Eastwood won the Oscar)--a designation = of=20 function.

However, despite that traditional = limitation=20 of function to adjectivals, there are occasions when the = -ing form=20 modifies verbs, as in Michael's example. So it makes = sense to=20 expand on the traditional "participle as verbal" definition = to=20 include adverbials as well as adjectivals. In "A = Comprehensive=20 Grammar of the English Language," Quirk et al. do precisely = that=20 when they discuss (on p. 506) what they call "obligatory = adjuncts"=20 [in other words, obligatory adverbials] with certain verbs = (sit,=20 stand, come, go) such as "He stood waiting," She sat = reading," =20 "She came running." In other words, these are = intransitive=20 verbs that in certain contexts are incomplete without=20 adverbials.

I think=20 it's fair to conclude, then, that to limit the = verbal/participle to=20 "modifier of nouns"--that is, to say that participles modify = only=20 nouns and not verbs--is not accurate when it comes to = certain verbs,=20 as described by Quirk et al.--and by = Michael.

In Ed's=20 explanation of "We go camping every summer," instead = of=20 expanding the definition of "participle" to include = adverbials, he=20 has expanded the definition of gerund.   I prefer = to leave=20 the definition of gerund as an -ing or -en verb that fills a = nominal=20 function. (While it's true that nouns and noun phrases = can=20 indeed modify verbs, they are not functioning nominally when = they do=20 so; they are functioning adverbially.)

(I=20 should mention also that in his KISS grammar Ed has come up = with a=20 solution to that dual use of the term "participle": He = calls=20 the adjectival use of -ing and -en verbs "gerundives."=20 )

In my=20 explanations of modern grammar, I try to use traditional = terminology=20 that has wide acceptance whenever possible, but sometimes, = as in the=20 case of "participle," that terminology may have to be = explained in=20 new, more accurate ways; it may have to be redefined. = Another=20 example, just to make the point clear, is the definition of=20 "pronoun": A pronoun generally substitutes for a = nominal (a=20 complete noun phrase, even a verb phrase or clause)--not = just a=20 noun, as the traditional definition tells = us.

My=20 apologies for going so far afield from=20 camping.

Martha=20 Kolln

To join or leave this = LISTSERV list,=20 please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html=20 and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at = http://ateg.org/ To join or = leave this=20 LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html=20 and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at = http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please = visit the=20 list's web interface at: http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html=20 and select "Join or leave the list"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join = or=20 leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at: http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html=20 and select "Join or leave the list"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ =

To join=20 or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface = at: http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html=20 and select "Join or leave the list"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To = join or=20 leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: = http://listserv.mu= ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html=20 and select "Join or leave the list"=20

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ =